Identification and relationship of quality of life and self-care ability among Chinese patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries: a cross-sectional analysis

• Autor(a) principal: Jiang,Li
• Data de Publicação: 2021
• Outros Autores: Sun,Li, Meng,Qingtao
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2021001200609
• topic: Modified Barthel Index; Paraplegia; Pressure injury; Quality of life; Spinal cord injuries; Tetraplegia

Improving the quality of life of patients with complete spinal cord injuries is an urgent objective of the Chinese Department of Health. For better management of spinal cord injuries, it is necessary to understand the background of the patients. A total of 392 patients aged ≥18 years with traumatic spinal cord injuries (≥1 year of history) were attending the rehabilitation center of the Institutes. A total of 7 (2%) patients reported low quality of life, 200 (51%) patients reported moderate quality of life, 181 (46%) patients reported good quality of life, and 4 (1%) patients reported excellent quality of life. Male patients (P=0.042), patients with college or more education (P=0.039), incomplete spinal cord injuries (P=0.045), paraplegia (P=0.046), and absence of pressure injury (P=0.047) were associated with higher quality of life. A total of 81 (21%) patients were dependent on the caregiver, 85 (22%) patients were highly dependent on the caregiver, 155 (40%) patients were moderately dependent on the caregiver, 60 (15%) patients were mildly dependent on the caregiver, and 11 (2%) patients were independent for activities of daily living. An incomplete spinal cord injury (P=0.045) and paraplegia (P=0.041) were associated with higher independence in activities of daily living of patients. The independence in activities of daily living and quality of life of the Chinese population with complete spinal cord injury and tetraplegia are poor (Level of Evidence: IV; Technical Efficacy Stage: 5).