Quality of life after spinal cord injury in Thai individuals: A mixed-methods study.
Anchalee Foongchomcheay, Aitthanatt Chachris Eitivipart, Jiraporn Kespichayawattana and 1 others
PMID 31156316WHAT IT FOUND
Thai people with spinal cord injury had much lower physical health than Thai norms.
Their vitality and social functioning were not lower. Interviews tied quality of life to paid work, personal assistants, accessible environments, stigma and self-advocacy.
Key findings
01People with spinal cord injury scored lower than Thai normative data on physical functioning and role limitations due to physical health.
02Both men and women with spinal cord injury scored higher than Thai normative data on vitality and social functioning.
03Interviews identified paid occupation, personal assistants, enabling environment, stigma and self-advocacy as supporting factors for quality of life, and self-image, freedom mobility and dignity and life goals as driving forces.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The participants were recruited in Bangkok, so the findings may not apply to rural areas of Thailand where resources for disability may be fewer. The study was cross-sectional, so it cannot show how quality of life changes over time or what caused the differences. No sample size calculation was performed, so the study may not have enough participants to generalise to all people with spinal cord injury in Bangkok. Only 11 of 101 questionnaire participants took part in the interviews, so the qualitative themes may not represent all participants. The qualitative themes came from 11 people, so they are not evidence that any treatment works. The SF-36v2 includes questions about walking and climbing stairs, which may not fit wheelchair users. The comparison with Thai normative data could not match all characteristics between groups, so the differences should be read cautiously.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the higher scores in employed participants or those living at home with a personal assistant as evidence that these things improve quality of life. The study was cross-sectional, so it can only show that these factors were linked to higher scores.