Perceived facilitators and barriers to self-management in individuals with traumatic spinal cord injury: a qualitative descriptive study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Current evidence has suggested the need for increased self-management support efforts in spinal cord injury (SCI) to reduce secondary complications. However, current self-management programs may not be suitable for the unique needs of individuals with SCI, including reduced mobility and the importance of attendant care. There is a need for greater understanding of the self-management strategies adopted by individuals with SCI and the potential need for a tailored self-management program. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to understand the perceived facilitators and barriers to self-management to prevent secondary complications. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative approach was used and involved telephone interviews. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals with traumatic SCI, their family members/caregivers, and managers from acute care/trauma and rehabilitation centres. Participants were recruited between September 2011 and May 2012. Analysis was conducted using inductive thematic analysis to understand the perceived facilitators and barriers to self-management to prevent secondary complications. RESULTS: A total of 26 interviews were conducted and they included 7 individuals with traumatic SCI, 7 family/caregivers (i.e., 7 SCI-caregiver dyads), and 12 acute care/rehabilitation managers from across the province of Ontario. The following five facilitators to self-management were identified: physical support from the caregiver, emotional support from the caregiver, peer support and feedback, importance of positive outlook and acceptance, and maintaining independence/control over care. The following five barriers to self-management were identified: caregiver burnout, funding and funding policies, lack of accessibility, physical limitations and secondary complications, and difficulties achieving positive outlook or mood. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the caregiver and the individual's own mood/outlook, among other facilitators and barriers, make significant contributions to the self-management of individuals with traumatic SCI. The issues of timing/readiness and comorbidities and aging were observed across many of these themes. As such, the development of a tailored self-management program for individuals with traumatic SCI and their caregivers should incorporate these considerations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».