Factors Influencing Quality of Life of People with Noncongenital Spinal Cord Injury

Hye Min Hwang; Myungsun Yi

doi:10.7469/kjan.2014.26.4.444

Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.26(4) > 1094575

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Hwang and Yi: Factors Influencing Quality of Life of People with Noncongenital Spinal Cord Injury

Original Article

Korean J Adult Nurs 2014;26(4):444-454.

Published online: NaN August 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7469/kjan.2014.26.4.444

Factors Influencing Quality of Life of People with Noncongenital Spinal Cord Injury

Hye Min Hwang^1,, Myungsun Yi²

^¹Department of Nursing, Bucheon University, Bucheon

^²Collegeof Nursing Research Institute of Nursing Science, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Hwang, Hye Min Department of Nursing, Bucheon University, 25 Shinheung-ro 56 beon-gil, Wonmi-gu, Bucheon 420-735, Korea. Tel: +82-32-610-0830, Fax: +82-32-610-0839, E-mail: julie06@bc.ac.kr

Received 7 June 20143 August 2014 Accepted 4 August 2014

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purposeof thestudy wasto examinethe relationshipsamongpainbelief, perceivedsocial support, coping strategies, and qualityoflife ofpeoplewith noncongenitalspinalcordinjury and toidentifyfactors influencing quality of life.

Methods

A correlation alpredictive design wasused. The data were collected from 197 people with non congenital spinal cord injury with question naires in 2012 in Korea. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, one-way ANOVA, Pearson's correlation coefficients, and stepwise multiple regression using SPSS/WIN 18.0.

Results

Pain belief, perceived social support, and coping strategies were correlated significantly with the quality of life. As a result of stepwise multiple regression analysis, pain belief, perceived social support, coping strategies, damaged area, and time since injury were discovered to account for 59.1% varianceofthequalityoflife. Thevariablethatmostaffectedthequalityoflifewaspainbelief followedbyperceived social support and coping strategies.

Conclusion

The results of the study clearly demonstrate the importance of pain control, social support, and coping skills in order to improve quality of life among people with non congenital spinal cord injury.

Keywords: Spinal cord injury, Quality of life, Pain, Social support, Coping skill

REFERENCES

Choi S. N.., Kim J. H.2012. Relationships among the pain belief, paincoping, andpaindisabilityof patients withchro-nic musculoskeletal pain. The Korean Journal of Rehabilitation Nursing. 15(1):30––38.

Choi Y. S.., Kim H. L.., Kim Y. H.., Lim J. R.2011. The association among activity of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, depression and isolation in disabled people. The Korean Journal of Rehabilitation Nursing. 14(1):5––12.

Cohen J.1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.

Dysvik E.., Lindstrom T.C.., Eikelan O. ̸ J.., Natvig G.K.2004. Health-relatedqualityof lifeandpain beliefs among people suffering from chronic pain. Pain Management Nursing. 5(2):66––74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmn.2003.11.003.

Elfstrom M.L.., Ryden A.., Kreuter M.., Persson L. O.., Sullivan M.2002. Linkages between coping and psychological outcome in the spinal cord lesioned: Development of SCL-related measure. Spinal Cord. 40:23––29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101238̈.

Elfstrom M. L.., Ryden A.., Kreuter M.., Taft C.., Sullivan M .2005. Relations between coping strategies and health related quality of life in patients with spinal cord lesion. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 37:9––16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16501970410034414̈.

Fann J.R.., Bombardier C.H.., Richards J.S.., Tate D.G.., Wilson C. S.., Temkin N.2009. Depression after spinal cord injury: Comorbidities, mental health service use, and adequacy of treatment. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 92(3):352––360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.05.016.

Hammell K. W.2004. Exploring quality of life following high spinal cord injury: A review and critique. Spinal Cord. 42:491––502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101636.

Hammell K.W.2010. Spinal cord injuryrehabilitationresearch: Patient priorities, current deficiencies and potential directions. Disability and Rehabilitation. 32(14):1209––1218. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638280903420325.

Hampton M. Z.2001. Disability status, perceived health, social support, self efficacy, andquality of life among peoplewith spinal cord injury in the people's Republic of China. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research. 24:69––71.

Hwang H. M.., Yi M.S.., Park E.Y.., Kwon E. J.2012. Pheno-menology on the lived experience of Korean women with spinal cord injuries. Journal of Korean Academy Nursing. 42(4):508––516. http://dx.doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2012.42.4.508.

Middleton J.., Tran Y.., Craig A.2007. Relationship between quality of life and self-efficacy in persons with spinal cord injuries. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 88:1643––1648. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.09.001.

Jang H. K.2006. A study on chronic pain, pain beliefs, pain coping, and fatigue in the elderly. Korean Journal of Adult Nursing. 18(3):377––385.

Jeong H. S.., Park H. S.2004. The relationship between activity daily livingand powerlessness of spinal cordinjurypati-ents. Korean Journal of Rehabilitation Nursing. 7(2):197––206.

Korea Spinal Cord Injury Association. 2010. A study on survey of spinal cord injury disabled persons. Seoul: Korea Spinal Cord Injury Association.

Krause J. S.., Carter R. E.2009. Risk of mortality after spinal cord injury: Relationship with social support, education, and income. Spinal Cord. 47:592––596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sc.2009.15.

Lee J. R.., Park C. M.2000. Quality of life using WHOQOL-Bref in Taegu. Korean Journal of Health Policy and Administration. 10(3):129––154.

Lim M. K.., Shin Y. S.., Yoo W. S.., Yang B. M.2003. Social support and self-rated health status in a low income neighborhood of Seoul, Korea. Korean Journal of Preventive Medicine. 36(1):54––62.

Min S. K.., Lee C. I.., Kim K. I.., Suh S. Y.., Kim D. K.2000. Development of Korean version of WHOquality of life scale abbreviated version. Journal of the Korean Neuropsychiatric Association. 39(3):571––579.

Park E. O.2011. A study on social support and depression by gender amongadults. Korea Journal of WomenHealthNursing. 17(2):169––177. http://dx.doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2011.17.2.169.

Persson L.O.., Ryden A ́.2006. Themes of effectivecoping in physical disability: An interview study of 26 persons who have learnt to live with their disability. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. 20(3):355––363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2006.00418.x.

Sherbourne C. D.., Stewart A. L.1991. The MOS social support survey. Social Science & Medicine. 32(6):705––714. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(91)90150-B.

Shin S. R.., Kim A. L.2001. Factors effect on quality of life of spinal cord injury patients. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 31(1):126––138.

Siddall P. J.., Taylor D. A.., Cousins M. J.1997. Classification of pain following spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 35(2):69––75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3100365.

The Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs. 2012. Survey on person with disabilities. Issue Brief No.: 2011-82. Seoul: The Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs.

Williams D.A.., Thorn B.E.1989. Anempirical assessmentof pain beliefs. Pain. 36(3):351––358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(89)90095-X.

Unalan H.., Celik B.., Sahin A.., Caglar N.., Esen S.., Karameh-metoglu S.S.2007. Quality of life after spinal cord injury: The comparison of the SF-36 health survey and its spinal cord injury-modified version in assessing the health status of people with spinal cord injury. Neurosurgery Quarterly. 17(3):175––179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/WNQ.0b013e318063eb72.

World Health Organization. 2001. International classification of functioning, disability and health. (ICF).Geneva: WHO.

Wollaars M.M.., Post M.W.., Asbeck F.W.A.., Brand N.2007. Spinal cord injury pain: The influence of psychologic factors and impact on quality of life. The Clinical Journal of Pain. 23(5):383––391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e31804463e5.

Table 1.

Demographic and Spinal Cord Injury-related Characteristics (N=197)

Characteristics	Categories	n (%)	M±SD
Age (year)	20~29	23 (11.7)	41.9±10.9
	30~39	68 (34.5)
	40~49	52 (26.4)
	50~59	42 (21.3)
	60 ≥	12 (6.1)
Gender	Male	157 (79.7)
Gender	Female	40 (20.3)
Marital status	Unmarried	87 (44.2)
	Married	91 (46.2)
	Divorced	19 (9.6)
Religion	None	89 (45.2)
Religion	Yes	108 (54.8)
Educational level	Middle school	12 (6.1)
	High school	87 (44.2)
	College	78 (39.6)
	College ＞	20 (10.2)
Occupation	Yes	57 (28.9)
Occupation	No	140 (71.7)
Economic status	High	5 (2.5)
	Middle	103 (52.3)
	Low	89 (45.2)
Cause of injury	Traffic accident	101 (51.3)
	Fall Sports	54 (28.3) 26 (13.2)
	Others	16 (8.1)
Injured area	Cervical	95 (48.2)
	Thoracic	90 (45.7)
	Lumbar	12 (6.1)
Severity of injury (ASIA scale)	Motor complete quadriplegia	62 (31.5)
	Motor incomplete quadriplegia	32 (16.2)
	Motor complete paraplegia	73 (37.1)
	Motor incomplete paraplegia	30 (15.2)
Time since injury (year)	2 ＜	36 (18.3)	8.3±5.5
	2~ 5 ≥ ＜	28 (14.2)
	5~ 10 ≥ ＜	61 (31.0)
	10~ 20 ≥ ＜	72 (36.6)

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of the Study Variables (N=197)

Variables	M±SD	Range
Pain belief	2.40±0.54	1.00~3.81
PBPI: time	2.73±0.65	1.00~4.00
PBPI: mystery	1.92±0.64	1.00~4.00
PBPI: self blame	2.10±0.83	1.00~4.00
Perceived social support	57.95±25.30	2.34~100.00
Tangible support	64.99±26.34	0~100
Affection	55.22±30.12	0~100
Positive interaction	54.95±28.60	0~100
Emotional & informational support	56.63±24.67	0~100
Coping strategies	2.60±0.04	1.50~3.75
SCL-CSQ: acceptance	2.62±0.69	1.00~4.00
SCL-CSQ: fighting spirit	2.71±0.65	1.25~4.00
SCL-CSQ: social reliance	2.42±0.62	1.00~4.00
Quality of life (QOL)	2.88±0.45	1.38~4.31
Overall QOL & General health domain	2.75±0.88	1.00~5.00
Physical health domain	2.75±0.74	1.14~4.43
Psychological health domain	3.10±0.79	1.17~5.00
Social domain	2.63±0.74	1.00~4.67
Environmental domain	2.93±0.68	1.13~4.38

PBPI=pain belief & perception inventory; SCL-CSQ=spinal cord lesion-coping strategies questionnaire.

Table 3.

Quality of Life by General and Spinal Cord Injury-related Characteristics (N=197)

Characteristics	Categories	Quality of life
Characteristics	Categories	M±SD	t or F	p (Duncan^†)
Age (year)	20~29	3.16±0.52	3.13	.010
	30~39	2.93±0.66
	40~49	2.81±0.57
	50~59	2.66±0.64
	60 ≥	3.08±0.63
Gender	Male	2.79±0.68	-0.92	.357
Gender	Female	2.89±0.62	-0.92	.357
Marital status	Unmarried^a	2.96±0.59	3.44	.034
	Married^b	2.86±0.65		(a, b ＜c)
	Divorced^c	2.55±0.63
Religion	Yes	2.95±0.63	1.97	.049
Religion	No	2.77±0.63	1.97	.049
Educational level	Middle school^a	2.37±0.69	4.52	.012
	High school_b	2.85±0.59		(a b, ＜ c)
	≥College_c	2.94±0.65
Occupation	Don't have	2.77±0.61	3.58	.001 ＜
Occupation	Have	3.11±0.63	3.58	.001 ＜
Economic status	High^a	2.00±0.65	4.83	.009
	Middle^b	2.32±0.54		(a b, ＜ c)
	Low^c	2.52±0.50		(a b, ＜ c)
Cause of injury	Traffic accident	2.92±0.66	0.35	.791
	Fall	2.83±0.58
	Sports	2.84±0.61
	Others	2.79±0.66
Injured area	Cervical^a	2.72±0.62	5.64	.004
	Thoracic^b	3.01±0.65		a b, ＜ c)
	Lumbar^c	3.00±0.40
Severity of injury	Motor complete quadriplegia^a	2.72±0.62	3.59	.015
	Motor incomplete quadriplegia^b	2.74±0.64		(a, b c, ＜ d)
	Motor complete paraplegia^c	2.95±0.65
	Motor incomplete paraplegia^d	3.11±0.52
Time since diagnosis (year)	＜2^a	2.58±0.51	6.32	＜.001
	≥ 2~ ≥5^b	2.67±0.60		(a, b, c ＜d)
	≥5~ <10^c	3.03±0.61
	10~ 20 ≥ ＜ d	3.03±0.61

^† The result of multiple comparison test.

Table 4.

Correlations between Quality of Life, Pain Belief, Perceived Social Support, and Coping Strategies (N=197)

Variables	Pain belief	Perceived social support	Coping strategies	Quality of life
Variables	r (p)	r (p)	r (p)	r (p)
Pain belief	1
Perceived social support	-.23 (.001)	1
Coping strategies	-.08 (.252)	.34 (.001) ＜	1
Quality of life	-.52 (.001) ＜	.54 (.001) ＜	.44 (.001) ＜	1

Table 5.

Factors Influencing Quality of Life (N=197)

Variables	B	SE	β	t	p
(Constant)	2.14	.23			.001 ＜
Pain belief	-0.46	.06	-.39	-8.33	.001 ＜
Perceived social support	0.20	.03	.32	6.19	.001 ＜
Coping strategies	0.36	.06	.29	5.94	.001 ＜
Injured area	0.23	.06	.18	3.89	.001 ＜
Time since injury	0.21	.06	.16	3.42	.001
			Adj. R²=.59, F=55.50, p .001 ＜

TOOLS

Similar articles