• KSAN
  • Contact us
  • E-Submission

Korean J Adult Nurs : Korean Journal of Adult Nursing

OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button
Search
Advanced Search
ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Articles

Page Path

Original Article

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

Hye Min Hwang1, Myungsun Yi2
Korean Journal of Adult Nursing 2014;26(4):444-454.
Published online: August 31, 2014

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: June 7, 2014   • Accepted: August 4, 2014

Copyright © 2014 Korean Society of Adult Nursing

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.

  • 12 Views
  • 0 Download
  • 2 Crossref
prev next

Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF
  • 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.
  • Key Words: Spinal cord injury; Quality of life; Pain; Social support; Coping skill
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)
Female 40 (20.3)
Marital status Unmarried 87 (44.2)
Married 91 (46.2)
Divorced 19 (9.6)
Religion None 89 (45.2)
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)
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
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
Female 2.89±0.62
Marital status Unmarrieda 2.96±0.59 3.44 .034
Marriedb 2.86±0.65 (a, b ＜c)
Divorcedc 2.55±0.63
Religion Yes 2.95±0.63 1.97 .049
No 2.77±0.63
Educational level Middle schoola 2.37±0.69 4.52 .012
High schoolb 2.85±0.59 (a b, ＜ c)
≥Collegec 2.94±0.65
Occupation Don't have 2.77±0.61 3.58 .001 ＜
Have 3.11±0.63
Economic status Higha 2.00±0.65 4.83 .009
Middleb 2.32±0.54 (a b, ＜ c)
Lowc 2.52±0.50
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 Cervicala 2.72±0.62 5.64 .004
Thoracicb 3.01±0.65 a b, ＜ c)
Lumbarc 3.00±0.40
Severity of injury Motor complete quadriplegiaa 2.72±0.62 3.59 .015
Motor incomplete quadriplegiab 2.74±0.64 (a, b c, ＜ d)
Motor complete paraplegiac 2.95±0.65
Motor incomplete paraplegiad 3.11±0.52
Time since diagnosis (year) ＜2a 2.58±0.51 6.32 ＜.001
≥ 2~ ≥5b 2.67±0.60 (a, b, c ＜d)
≥5~ <10c 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
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 ＜
  • 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.

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Quality of Life in Middle-aged Men with Prostatic hyperplasia: A Structural Equation Model
      Hee Nam Moon, Seung Hee Yang
      Korean Journal of Adult Nursing.2023; 35(4): 327.     CrossRef
    • Access and engagement with places in the community, and the quality of life among people with spinal cord damage
      Ali Lakhani, Sanjoti Parekh, David P. Watling, Peter Grimbeek, Ross Duncan, Susan Charlifue, Elizabeth Kendall
      The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine.2022; 45(4): 522.     CrossRef

    Download Citation

    Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

    Format:

    Include:

    Factors Influencing Quality of Life of People with Noncongenital Spinal Cord Injury
    Korean J Adult Nurs. 2014;26(4):444-454.   Published online August 31, 2014
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2014.26.4.444
    Download Citation
    Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
    Format:
    • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
    • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
    Include:
    • Citation for the content below
    Factors Influencing Quality of Life of People with Noncongenital Spinal Cord Injury
    Korean J Adult Nurs. 2014;26(4):444-454.   Published online August 31, 2014
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2014.26.4.444
    Close
    Factors Influencing Quality of Life of People with Noncongenital Spinal Cord Injury
    Factors Influencing Quality of Life of People with Noncongenital Spinal Cord Injury

    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)
    Female 40 (20.3)
    Marital status Unmarried 87 (44.2)
    Married 91 (46.2)
    Divorced 19 (9.6)
    Religion None 89 (45.2)
    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)
    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)

    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.

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

    Characteristics Categories Quality of life
    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
    Female 2.89±0.62
    Marital status Unmarrieda 2.96±0.59 3.44 .034
    Marriedb 2.86±0.65 (a, b ＜c)
    Divorcedc 2.55±0.63
    Religion Yes 2.95±0.63 1.97 .049
    No 2.77±0.63
    Educational level Middle schoola 2.37±0.69 4.52 .012
    High schoolb 2.85±0.59 (a b, ＜ c)
    ≥Collegec 2.94±0.65
    Occupation Don't have 2.77±0.61 3.58 .001 ＜
    Have 3.11±0.63
    Economic status Higha 2.00±0.65 4.83 .009
    Middleb 2.32±0.54 (a b, ＜ c)
    Lowc 2.52±0.50
    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 Cervicala 2.72±0.62 5.64 .004
    Thoracicb 3.01±0.65 a b, ＜ c)
    Lumbarc 3.00±0.40
    Severity of injury Motor complete quadriplegiaa 2.72±0.62 3.59 .015
    Motor incomplete quadriplegiab 2.74±0.64 (a, b c, ＜ d)
    Motor complete paraplegiac 2.95±0.65
    Motor incomplete paraplegiad 3.11±0.52
    Time since diagnosis (year) ＜2a 2.58±0.51 6.32 ＜.001
    ≥ 2~ ≥5b 2.67±0.60 (a, b, c ＜d)
    ≥5~ <10c 3.03±0.61
    10~ 20 ≥ ＜ d 3.03±0.61

    †The result of multiple comparison test.

    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
    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

    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 ＜
    Table 1. Demographic and Spinal Cord Injury-related Characteristics (N=197)

    Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of the Study Variables (N=197)

    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)

    The result of multiple comparison test.

    Table 4. Correlations between Quality of Life, Pain Belief, Perceived Social Support, and Coping Strategies (N=197)

    Table 5. Factors Influencing Quality of Life (N=197)

    Table 1.

    Table 2.

    Table 3.

    Table 4.

    Table 5.

    Korean J Adult Nurs : Korean Journal of Adult Nursing

    ABOUT

    BROWSE ARTICLES 

    EDITORIAL POLICY

    FOR CONTRIBUTORS  

    © Korean Society of Adult Nursing.
    TOP