Literature DB >> 31069384

Social Participation of Burn Survivors and the General Population in Work and Employment: A Life Impact Burn Recovery Evaluation (LIBRE) Profile Study.

Cayla J Saret1, Pengsheng Ni1, Molly Marino1, Emily Dore1, Colleen M Ryan2,3,4, Jeffrey C Schneider3,5, Lewis E Kazis1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Work integration and retention after burn injury is a key outcome. Little is known about how burn survivors reintegrate into the workplace. This article compares scores on the Life Impact Burn Recovery Evaluation (LIBRE) Profile, a burn-specific measure of social participation, between burn survivors and general population samples, focusing on the Work and Employment domain.
METHODS: Convenience samples of burn survivors and the U.S. population were obtained. Differences in demographic and clinical characteristics and LIBRE Profile scores were assessed. To examine work and employment, we compared family and friends, social activities, and social interactions scores among working vs nonworking burn survivors.
RESULTS: Six hundred and one burn survivors (320 employed) and 2000 U.S. residents (1101 employed) were surveyed. The mean age (P = .06), distributions of sex (P = .35), and Hispanic ethnicity (P = .07) did not differ significantly. Distributions of race (P < .01) and education (P = .01) differed significantly. The burn survivor sample had higher scores, demonstrating higher participation, for work and employment (mean = 49.5, SD = 9.42) than the general sample (mean = 46.94, SD = 8.94; P < .0001), which persisted after adjusting for demographic characteristics. Scores on the three domains administered to all respondents were higher (P < .001) for working than nonworking burn survivors.
CONCLUSION: Distributions indicated higher social participation in the burn survivor sample than the general sample. Possible explanations include sample bias; resilience, posttraumatic growth, or response-shift of survivors; and limitations of using items in the general sample. Working burn survivors scored higher than those not working. Future work can explore factors that mediate higher scores and develop interventions. © American Burn Association 2019. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31069384      PMCID: PMC9302902          DOI: 10.1093/jbcr/irz076

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Burn Care Res        ISSN: 1559-047X            Impact factor:   1.819


  45 in total

Review 1.  Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life.

Authors:  D L Patrick; R A Deyo
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Influence of Priming on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Femke M A P Claessen; Jos J Mellema; Nicky Stoop; Bart Lubberts; David Ring; Rudolf W Poolman
Journal:  Psychosomatics       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 2.386

Review 3.  Burn rehabilitation: an overview.

Authors:  Peter C Esselman
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.966

Review 4.  Community integration outcome after burn injury.

Authors:  Peter C Esselman
Journal:  Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 1.784

5.  Measuring the Social Impact of Burns on Survivors.

Authors:  Molly Marino; Marina Soley-Bori; Alan M Jette; Mary D Slavin; Colleen M Ryan; Jeffrey C Schneider; Amy Acton; Flor Amaya; Melinda Rossi; Rene Soria-Saucedo; Linda Resnik; Lewis E Kazis
Journal:  J Burn Care Res       Date:  2017 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 1.845

6.  Applications of response shift theory and methods to participation measurement: a brief history of a young field.

Authors:  Carolyn E Schwartz
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.966

7.  Recovery Curves for Pediatric Burn Survivors: Advances in Patient-Oriented Outcomes.

Authors:  Lewis E Kazis; Austin F Lee; Mary Rose; Matthew H Liang; Nien-Chen Li; Xinhua S Ren; Robert Sheridan; Janet Gilroy-Lewis; Fred Stoddard; Michelle Hinson; Glenn Warden; Kim Stubbs; Patricia Blakeney; Walter Meyer; Robert McCauley; David Herndon; Tina Palmieri; Kate Mooney; David Wood; Frank Pidcock; Debra Reilly; Marc Cullen; Catherine Calvert; Colleen M Ryan; Jeffrey C Schneider; Marina Soley-Bori; Ronald G Tompkins
Journal:  JAMA Pediatr       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 16.193

Review 8.  Psychosocial care of persons with severe burns.

Authors:  Patricia E Blakeney; Laura Rosenberg; Marta Rosenberg; A W Faber
Journal:  Burns       Date:  2008-01-18       Impact factor: 2.744

9.  Return to work as a measure of outcome in adults hospitalized for acute burn treatment.

Authors:  J R Saffle; G M Tuohig; J J Sullivan; J Shelby; S E Morris; M Mone
Journal:  J Burn Care Rehabil       Date:  1996 Jul-Aug

Review 10.  Factors relating to return to work after burn injury.

Authors:  M Wrigley; B K Trotman; A Dimick; P R Fine
Journal:  J Burn Care Rehabil       Date:  1995 Jul-Aug
View more
  1 in total

1.  Interpreting Life Impact Burn Recovery Evaluation Profile Scores for Use by Clinicians, Burn Survivors, and Researchers.

Authors:  Mary D Slavin; Colleen M Ryan; Jeffrey C Schneider; Amy Acton; Flor Amaya; Cayla Saret; Emily Ohrtman; Audrey Wolfe; Pengsheng Ni; Lewis E Kazis
Journal:  J Burn Care Res       Date:  2021-02-03       Impact factor: 1.845

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.