4.4 Article

Health-related quality-of-life and life satisfaction 6-15 years after traumatic brain injuries in northern Sweden

Journal

BRAIN INJURY
Volume 24, Issue 9, Pages 1075-1086

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02699052.2010.494590

Keywords

Long-term outcome; outcome assessment; traumatic brain injury; quality of life; questionnaires

Funding

  1. Norrbacka-Eugenia Foundation
  2. Cancer and Traffic Injury Fund
  3. Norrbotten County Council
  4. Swedish Association of Brain Injured and their Families
  5. Skane county council's research and development foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To describe health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and life satisfaction many years after a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and assess possible associations with variables related to the time of injury and follow-up and the individuals' self-appraisal of the impact of the TBI. Method: Sixty-seven individuals (18-65 years), on average 10 years post-injury, were interviewed. Data on HRQoL, using the SF-36 questionnaire, were compared with a Swedish age-and sex-matched reference sample, and life satisfaction, using the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS), were compared with a nationwide Swedish sample of students. The participant's self-appraisal of the TBI was assessed with two supplementary questions. Data were analysed with hierarchical multiple regression analyses. Results: HRQoL as well as life satisfaction were lower compared with the reference samples. From the regression analyses, the individuals' own appraisal of the impact of the TBI and whether they were vocationally productive or not were strongly associated with their current physical health and life satisfaction. Conclusion: These results confirm the importance of TBI as a cause of long-term disability and the impact of the injury on the individuals' self-perceived values of health, quality-of-life and life satisfaction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available