Literature DB >> 21636830

Mismatch between investigator-determined and patient-reported independence after spinal cord injury: consequences for rehabilitation and trials.

Hubertus J A van Hedel1, Petra Dokladal, Sabina Hotz-Boendermaker.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the course and relationship between investigator-determined and patient-reported level of independence within the first year after spinal cord injury (SCI). The authors examined variables that contributed to these scores.
METHODS: In this observational cohort study, 73 patients with traumatic SCI were evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months (and 40 subjects at 1 to 12 months). The investigator-determined independence was quantified using the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM). The subjective, patient-reported independence was determined by asking how their general restrictions influenced everyday life activities. Several variables were used to explain these 2 scores.
RESULTS: The SCIM score was higher than the patient-reported independence and improved significantly more over time (up to about 70/100 at 12 months), whereas the perceived independence remained below 50/100. The correlations between the 2 measures were at most moderate (r(s) ≤ 0.51), but in general somewhat higher for subjects with tetraplegia. Age and muscle strength predicted the SCIM score well. No variable predicted the patient-reported level of independence.
CONCLUSIONS: Investigator-determined and patient-reported outcomes can differ considerably and evolve differently. A patient-reported outcome measure may not detect actual functional improvement. It is likely that changes in patient-reported outcomes are influenced by many factors in addition to those associated with functional recovery, including psychological factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21636830     DOI: 10.1177/1545968311407518

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair        ISSN: 1545-9683            Impact factor:   3.919


  5 in total

1.  Low depressive symptoms in acute spinal cord injury compared to other neurological disorders.

Authors:  Katayun Hassanpour; Sabina Hotz-Boendermaker; Petra Dokladal; Armin Curt
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 4.849

2.  Neurological recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury: what is meaningful? A patients' and physicians' perspective.

Authors:  Paula Valerie Ter Wengel; Marcel W M Post; Enrico Martin; Janneke Stolwijk-Swuste; Allard Jan Frederik Hosman; Said Sadiqi; William Peter Vandertop; Fetullah Cumhur Öner
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 2.772

Review 3.  Wearable motion sensors to continuously measure real-world physical activities.

Authors:  Bruce H Dobkin
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurol       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.710

Review 4.  Challenges for defining minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after spinal cord injury.

Authors:  X Wu; J Liu; L G Tanadini; D P Lammertse; A R Blight; John L K Kramer; G Scivoletto; L Jones; S Kirshblum; R Abel; J Fawcett; E Field-Fote; J Guest; B Levinson; D Maier; K Tansey; N Weidner; W G Tetzlaff; T Hothorn; A Curt; J D Steeves
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 2.772

5.  Home-Based Virtual Reality-Augmented Training Improves Lower Limb Muscle Strength, Balance, and Functional Mobility following Chronic Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury.

Authors:  Michael Villiger; Jasmin Liviero; Lea Awai; Rahel Stoop; Pawel Pyk; Ron Clijsen; Armin Curt; Kynan Eng; Marc Bolliger
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 4.003

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.