4.7 Article

Concepts of functioning and health important to people with systemic sclerosis: a qualitative study in four European countries

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 70, 期 6, 页码 1074-1079

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2010.148767

关键词

-

资金

  1. Standing Committee of Health Professionals in Rheumatology in EULAR
  2. County Council of Norrbotten, Sweden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To describe the experiences of people with systemic sclerosis (SSc) in different European countries of functioning and health and to link these experiences to the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to develop a common understanding from a bio-psycho-social perspective. Method A qualitative multicentre study with focus-group interviews was performed in four European countries: Austria, Romania, Sweden and Switzerland. The qualitative data analysis followed a modified form of 'meaning condensation' and the concepts that emerged in the analysis were linked to the ICF. Results 63 people with SSc participated in 13 focus groups. In total, 86 concepts were identified. 32 (37%) of these were linked to the ICF component body functions and structures, 21 (24%) to activities and participation, 26 (30%) to environmental factors, 6 (7%) to personal factors and 1 (1%) to the health condition itself. 19 concepts (22%) were identified in all four countries and included impaired hand function, household activities, paid work, drugs, climate and coldness, support from others and experiences with healthcare institutions, non-pharmacological treatment, social security and benefits. Conclusion Concepts identified in all four countries could be used for guiding clinical assessment, as well as interdisciplinary team care and rheumatological rehabilitation for patients with SSc. For a full understanding of the aspects of the disease that were most relevant to people with SSc, people with SSc from multiple countries needed to be involved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据