Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/30829
Title: Australian arm of the International Spinal Cord Injury (Aus-InSCI) Community Survey: 3. Drivers of quality of life in people with spinal cord injury.
Austin Authors: Kifley, Annette;Arora, Mohit;Nunn, Andrew K ;Marshall, Ruth;Geraghty, Timothy;Weber, Gerard;Urquhart, Sue;Craig, Ashley;Cameron, Ian D;Middleton, James W
Affiliation: Spinal Injury Unit, Royal Rehab, Ryde, NSW, Australia..
Queensland Spinal Cord Injury Service, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia..
Victorian Spinal Cord Service
South Australian Spinal Cord Injury Service, Central Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, SA, Australia..
Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia..
Queensland Spinal Cord Injuries Service, Division of Rehabilitation, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia..
The Hopkins Centre, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia..
John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Kolling Institute, Northern Sydney Local Health District, St Leonards, NSW, Australia..
Sydney Medical School-Northern, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia..
State Spinal Cord Injury Service, Agency for Clinical Innovation, St Leonards, NSW, Australia..
Spinal Outreach Service, Royal Rehab, Ryde, NSW, Australia..
Issue Date: 2023
Date: 2022
Publication information: Spinal Cord 2023; 61(3)
Abstract: Cross-sectional population-based survey for the Australian cohort of the International Spinal Cord Injury (InSCI) Community Survey. To differentiate subgroups of people with spinal cord injury (SCI) who self-report good and poor overall quality of life (QoL) using domains of the International Classification of Functioning (ICF), and to evaluate how these factors contribute to QoL when considered together, while controlling confounders. Australian survey data from four state-wide SCI services, one government insurance agency, and three not-for-profit consumer organisations. Explanatory factors for QoL were compared between participants reporting poor vs. good QoL. Path models estimated total, direct and mediated contributions from each explanatory factor to QoL ratings after accounting for confounders. Most participants (62%) reported good or very good QoL, 12% reported poor or very poor QoL. When explanatory factors were considered together, the strongest total effects on QoL involved social integration (+0.36 SDs), subjective social position (+0.29), secondary health condition burden (-0.28), activity/participation problem burden (-0.26), day-to-day assistance (-0.26), mental health (+0.18), pain (-0.16), self-efficacy (+0.15), vitality (+0.14) and environmental barriers (-0.11). Effects of social integration, mental health, vitality, self-efficacy, pain and activity/participation problems were partly or wholly direct. Opportunities to improve QoL in people with SCI exist at every level of the health system. Virtually all aspects of the ICF framework make a substantive difference to QoL outcomes. Social and psychological factors and ability to complete desired activities have key direct effects and influence effects of secondary health condition burden and environmental barriers.
URI: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/30829
DOI: 10.1038/s41393-022-00845-3
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3764-4905
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1024-3682
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7647-7604
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2777-8619
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0222-9410
Journal: Spinal Cord
PubMed URL: 35995988
PubMed URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35995988/
Type: Journal Article
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

38
checked on Nov 24, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.