4.4 Article

Perceived spasticity in chronic spinal cord injured patients: Associations with psychological factors

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 32, Issue 9, Pages 775-780

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638280903304490

Keywords

Spinal cord injury; spasticity; helplessness; reassuring thoughts

Categories

Funding

  1. Dutch government [BSIK 03025]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. To explore the association between perceived spasticity and psychological factors (pain sensations, coping strategies, and illness cognitions) in chronic spinal cord injured (SCI) patients. Methods. Cross-sectional study using a set of questionnaires was designed for chronic complete patients with SCI and with self-reported leg spasticity. Outcome measures were Visual Analogue Scale for average perceived leg spasticity (VAS(Spasticity)), VAS(Pain) for average perceived pain sensations in the leg, Utrecht Coping List (UCL) including its seven subscales, and Illness Cognition Questionnaire (ICQ) with its three subscales. Psychological factors with a bivariate correlation with VAS(Spasticity) of p < 0.2 were selected for regression analyses. Results. Nineteen patients with SCI (response rate 86%) participated. Bivariate correlations of p < 0.2 were found between VAS(Spasticity), and VAS(Pain,) UCL(Active approach), UCL(Seeking social support), UCL(Reassuring thoughts), ICQ(Acceptation), and ICQ(Helplessness). Only UCL(Reassuring) (thoughts) (Beta 0.59, p = 0.01) and ICQ(Helplessness) (Beta 0.50, p = 0.02) were retained in the multivariate model, explaining 44% of the variance in VAS(Spasticity) (R(adjusted)(2)). Conclusions. Perceived spasticity appeared associated with psychological factors in complete patients with SCI: Those with higher levels of reassuring thoughts and lower levels of helplessness reported relatively lower levels of perceived spasticity. Large prospective cohort studies are recommended.

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