Article

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in perceived quality of life (QOL) at 1 year
postinjury between people with tetraplegia who required mechanical ventilation
assistance at discharge from rehabilitation and those who did not. DESIGN:
Prospective cross-sectional examination of people with spinal cord injury (SCI)
drawn from the SCI Model Systems National Database. SETTING: Community.
PARTICIPANTS: People with tetraplegia (N=1635) who sustained traumatic SCI
between January 1, 1994, and September 30, 2008, who completed a 1-year follow-up
interview, including 79 people who required at least some use of a ventilator at
discharge from rehabilitation. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME
MEASURES: Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS); Craig Handicap Assessment and
Reporting Technique (CHART)-Short Form Physical Independence, Mobility, Social
Integration, and Occupation subscales; Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9),
Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey self-perceived health
status. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between the ventilator-user
(VU) group and non-ventilator-user (NVU) group for cause of trauma, proportion
with complete injury, neurologic impairment level, and number of
rehospitalizations. The NVU group had significantly higher SWLS and CHART Social
Integration scores than the VU group after controlling for selected covariates.
The NVU group also had more positive perceived health status compared with a year
previously and a lower incidence of depression assessed by using the PHQ-9 than
the VU group. There were no significant differences between groups for perceived
current health status. CONCLUSIONS: People in this study who did not require
mechanical ventilation at discharge from rehabilitation post-SCI reported
generally better health and improved QOL compared with those who required
ventilator assistance at 1 year postinjury. Nonetheless, the literature suggests
that perceptions of QOL improve as people live in the community for longer
periods.
CI - Copyright (c) 2011 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by
Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Langue : ANGLAIS