Who wants to walk? Preferences for recovery after SCI: A longitudinal and cross-sectional study

Spinal Cord

Volumn 46, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 500-506

  Ditunno, P L ^a   Patrick, M ^a   Stineman, M ^b   Ditunno, J F ^a  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Consensus building; Preferences or recovery; Rehabilitation; Spinal cord injury; Walking

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLIMBING; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; CONSUMER; CONVALESCENCE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INJURY SEVERITY; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REHABILITATION CARE; SANITATION; SCORING SYSTEM; SPINAL CORD INJURY; TOILET TRANSFER; WALKING; WALKING DIFFICULTY; WHEELCHAIR;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DISABILITY EVALUATION; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; REHABILITATION CENTERS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPINAL CORD INJURIES; TIME FACTORS; WALKING;

EID: 46749089218     PISSN: 13624393     EISSN: 14765624     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.sc.3102172     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Notice of final long-range plan for fiscal years 2005-2009. Federal Register 2006; 71: 8166-8200.
2. The Rehabilitation Accreditation Commission http//www.carf.org/consumer. aspx?Content=Content/ConsumerServices/cs03en. html&ID,Accessed July 26, 2005.
3. Kennedy P, Hamilton LR. The needs assessment checklist: a clinical approach to measuring outcome. Spinal Cord 1999; 37: 136-139.
4. Duff J, Evans MJ, Kennedy P. Goal planning: a retrospective audit of rehabilitation processes and outcome. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18: 275-286.
5. Tate DG, Kalpakjian CZA, Forchheimer MB. Quality of life in individuals with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83 (Suppl 2): S18-S25.
6. Manns PJ, Chad KE. Components of quality of life for persons with a quadriplegic and paraplegic spinal cord injury. Qual health Res 2001; 11: 795-811.
7. Dijkers MPJM, Whiteneck G, El-Jaroudi R. Measures of social outcomes in disability research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81 (Suppl 2): S63-S80.
8. Anderson K. Targeting recovery: priorities of the spinal cord-injured population. J Neurotrauma 2004; 21: 1371-1383.
9. Donnelly C, Eng JJ, Hall J, Alford L, Giachino R, Norton K et al. Client-centered assessment and the identification of meaningful treatment goals for individuals with a spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2004; 42: 302-307.
10. Estores IM. The consumer's perspective and the professional literature: what do persons with spinal cord injury want? J Rehabil Res Dev 2003; 40: 93-98.
11. Kilgore KL, Scherer M, Bobblitt R, Dettloff J, Dombrowski DM, Godbold N et al. Neuroprosthesis consumers' forum: consumer priorities for research direction. JRRD 2001; 38: 655-660.
12. Stineman MG, Maislin G, Nosek M, Fiedler R, Granger CV. Comparing consumer and clinician values for alternative functional states: application of a new feature trade-off consensus-building tool. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 79: 1522-1529.
13. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil 1987; 1: 6-18.
14. Patrick M, Ditunno PL, Ditunno JF. A Comparison of spinal cord injury (SCI) consumers/staff preference for walking: a pilot study. J Spinal Cord Med 2003; 26: S41.
15. Catz A, Itzkovich M, Agranov E, Ring H, Tamir A. SCIM-spinal cord independence measure: a new disability scale for patients with spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord 1997; 35: 850-856.
16. Ditunno PL, Patrick M, Stineman M, Morganti B, Townson AF, Ditunno JF. Cross-cultural differences in preference for recovery of mobility among spinal cord injury rehabilitation professionals. Spinal Cord 2006; 44: 567-575.
17. Glickman S, Kamm MA. Bowel dysfunction in spinal cord injury patients. Lancet 1996; 347: 1651-1653.
18. Hicken BL, Putzke JD, Richards JS. Bladder management and quality of life after spinal cord injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 80: 916-922.