Who wants to walk? Preferences for recovery after SCI: a longitudinal and cross-sectional study

被引:244
作者
Ditunno, P. L. [1 ]
Patrick, M. [1 ]
Stineman, M. [2 ]
Ditunno, J. F. [1 ]
机构
[1] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Dept Rehabil Med, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[2] Hosp Univ Penn, Dept Phys Med & Rehabil, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
关键词
spinal cord injury; preferences or recovery; walking; consensus building; rehabilitation;
D O I
10.1038/sj.sc.3102172
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study design: Cross-sectional and longitudinal direct observation of a constrained consensus-building process in nine consumer panels and three rehabilitation professional panels. Objectives: To illustrate differences among consumer and clinician preferences for the restoration of walking function based on severity of injury, time of injury and age of the individual. Setting: Regional Spinal Cord Center in Philadelphia, USA. Methods: Twelve panels (consumer and clinical) came to independent consensus using the features resource trade-off game. The procedure involves trading imagined levels of independence (resources) across different functional items (features) at different stages of recovery. Results: Walking is given priority early in the game by eight out of nine consumer panels and by two out of three professional panels. The exception consumer panel (ISCI<50) moved walking later in the game, whereas the exception professional panel (rehRx) moved wheelchair early but walking much delayed. Bowel and Bladder was given primary importance in all panels. Conclusions: Walking is a high priority for recovery among consumers with spinal cord injury irrespective of severity of injury, time of injury and age at time of injury. Among professional staff, walking is also of high priority except in rehabilitation professionals.
引用
收藏
页码:500 / 506
页数:7
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]
Targeting recovery: Priorities of the spinal cord-injured population [J].
Anderson, KD .
JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA, 2004, 21 (10) :1371-1383
[2]
SCIM - spinal cord independence measure: a new disability scale for patients with spinal cord lesions [J].
Catz, A ;
Itzkovich, M ;
Agranov, E ;
Ring, H ;
Tamir, A .
SPINAL CORD, 1997, 35 (12) :850-856
[3]
Measures of social outcomes in disability research [J].
Dijkers, MPJM ;
Whiteneck, G ;
El-Jaroudi, R .
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 2000, 81 (12) :S63-S80
[4]
Cross-cultural differences in preference for recovery of mobility among spinal cord injury rehabilitation professionals [J].
Ditunno, P. L. ;
Patrick, M. ;
Stineman, M. ;
Morganti, B. ;
Townson, A. F. ;
Ditunno, J. F. .
SPINAL CORD, 2006, 44 (09) :567-575
[5]
Client-centred assessment and the identification of meaningful treatment goals for individuals with a spinal cord injury [J].
Donnelly, C ;
Eng, JJ ;
Hall, J ;
Alford, L ;
Giachino, R ;
Norton, K ;
Kerr, DS .
SPINAL CORD, 2004, 42 (05) :302-307
[6]
Goal planning: a retrospective audit of rehabilitation process and outcome [J].
Duff, J ;
Evans, MJ ;
Kennedy, P .
CLINICAL REHABILITATION, 2004, 18 (03) :275-286
[7]
The consumer's perspective and the professional literature: What do persons with spinal cord injury want? [J].
Estores, IM .
JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, 2003, 40 (04) :93-98
[8]
Bowel dysfunction in spinal-card-injury patients [J].
Glickman, S ;
Kamm, MA .
LANCET, 1996, 347 (9016) :1651-1653
[9]
Bladder management and quality of life after spinal cord injury [J].
Hicken, BL ;
Putzke, JD ;
Richards, JS .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION, 2001, 80 (12) :916-922
[10]
Keith R A, 1987, Adv Clin Rehabil, V1, P6