TABLE 1.

NVivo coding structure of categories and themes derived from participant interviews.

Category/node	Sub-themes	Participants’ descriptions of:
Mechanical attachment of prosthesis to body	Past experiences with socket prosthesis	Past experiences and practices using and wearing a socket prosthesis.
	Comparisons between socket and osseointegration	Comparison between participants’ past experiences with socket and current with osseointegration.
	Bodily adjustments and accommodations to prosthesis	Posture, pain in other parts of the body, compensation, numbness and tingling in other body parts (not missing body part), or lack thereof, for both socket and osseointegrated prostheses.
	Removing and putting on the prosthesis	Experiences with removal and attachment of the device, for both socket and osseointegration.
Control of prosthesis by user	Surface electrode experiences	Past experiences wearing and using surface electrodes, putting them on, challenges faced.
	Implanted electrode experiences	Current experiences with implanted electrodes.
	Electrical interference	Experiences with electrical interference from environment with prosthesis’s electrical system.
	Trust in the prosthesis	Participants’ degree of trust in prosthesis to not malfunction.
	“Naturalness” of control of prosthesis	The degree to which intuitive control of the prosthesis feels “natural.”
	Scenarios of use facilitated by control	New scenarios and occasions in which use is facilitated by improved control.
	Habituation and training	The training required to habituate body and prosthesis.
	Breakdown and malfunction	Challenges with control, breakdown and malfunction of the device.
	Description of feedback’s sensory qualities	Language about the quality or type of sensation users experience with regard to touch, location, size/area, frequency, and duration.
Experience of sensory feedback via neurostimulation	Sensory discrimination	Location of sensor contact with object and prosthetic hand in relation to felt sensation in the phantom hand.
[-10pt]	Appraisal of sensory feedback’s utility	Opinions regarding the utility, purpose, relevance, or quality of sensory feedback.
	Reliance on other forms of feedback	Other non-sensory (i.e., visual and auditory) feedback used to locate prosthesis in space or exercise control.
	The term “natural” with regards to sensory feedback	Invocation and use of the word “natural” to describe (or purposely not describe) different elements of sensory feedback.
	Stump sensation	Presence or absence of sensation or pain on the stump or residual limb.
Prosthesis use in daily life	Extent of usage	Amount of time prosthesis is used, including periodic removal and reattachment throughout the day, charging requirements.
	Diversity of tasks and activities of use	The tasks and activities participants use prosthesis for, comparison with past socket prosthesis and/or surface electrode activities of use.
Relationship between prosthesis and phantom limb	Phantom limb pain	The presence or absence or degree of phantom limb pain with and without prosthesis on, before and after use, and general patient history of phantom limb pain.
	Phantom limb position	The position of the phantom limb with and without the prosthesis.
	Phantom limb mobility	The mobility of the phantom limb with and without the prosthesis.
	Phantom limb sensation	Phantom limb sensation, particularly with respect to its relationship with neurostimulation for sensory feedback.
Self-esteem, self-image, and incorporation of prosthesis into body	Self-efficacy and independence	Participants’ sense of being independent and self-efficacious with regards to performing tasks and activities themselves.
	Self-esteem	Participants’ self-esteem before and after neuromusculoskeletal prosthesis, including comments on self-image, body-image, and identity.
	Feeling “handicapped”	The term “handicapped” and explanations of its meaning, its relevance to prosthesis use and function, as well as overall self-image in a societal context.
	Mood	Mood state and overall affective wellbeing before and after receiving a neuromusculoskeletal prosthesis.
	Ownership and prosthesis as “part of me”	The degree to which participants consider prosthesis part of their body, self, and/or identity.
	Prosthesis as tool	The degree to which participants experience prosthesis as an external tool.
Social and emotional wellbeing	Relationships with family members	Family members’ perceptions of neuromusculoskeletal prosthesis, interactions with family members in relation to neuromusculoskeletal prosthesis.
	Relationships with friends and coworkers	Friends’ and coworkers’ perceptions of neuromusculoskeletal prosthesis, interactions with friends and coworkers in relation to neuromusculoskeletal prosthesis.
	Interactions in public with strangers	Interactions with strangers in public with regard to the neuromusculoskeletal prosthesis.