MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411789690 · doi:10.2196/71162

Assessing the Psychosocial Impact of Expressive Writing on Adults With Spinal Cord Injury: Qualitative Study

2025· article· en· W4411789690 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shelly M. Xie, M. Helen Veronica McKenna, Kendall Veach, M. Jones, Elizabeth Vander Kamp, Salaam Green, Lauren Edwards, Kimberly Kirklin, Benjamin Jones, Hon K. Yuen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisPsychosocialPsychologyQualitative researchCoping (psychology)Clinical psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Spinal cord injury (SCI) results in significant physical, emotional, and social consequences, often leading to profound grief and unresolved emotional burdens. While expressive writing has shown potential in facilitating emotional processing and in aiding coping after trauma, loss, and health-related adversity, its impact on individuals who have suddenly lost physical abilities due to SCI remains underexplored. Objective: The study aimed to examine the experiences of adults with SCI who participated in a 10-week web-based coach-guided expressive writing program to understand its impact using a qualitative research design with a phenomenological approach. Methods: Participants were recruited through various outreach strategies based on a set of predefined criteria. A total of 50 individuals from 23 states expressed interest in the expressive writing program. Of those who met the eligibility criteria, 29 individuals completed the preprogram questionnaire. A total of 5 participants did not complete the postprogram assessments, including the exit interview. The program sessions were structured with reflective prompts designed to explore their emotions and life experiences related to their conditions. Qualitative data were collected through postprogram semistructured interviews and analyzed using thematic analysis to identify themes related to participants' experiences and program impact. The analysis was conducted without any preset theoretical framework of reference. Results: A total of 24 adults with SCI, aged between 34 and 76 years (average age 51, SD 12 years), participated in the expressive writing program and the exit interview. Of these, 19 participants were White, and 17 were female. In total, 18 participants had sustained a traumatic SCI; of these, 10 had quadriplegia, 12 had paraplegia, and 2 had monoplegia. Qualitative analysis revealed three overarching themes: (1) supportive environment: the program provided participants a space that encouraged open reflection on past events and personal struggles, and the guidance of patient and empathetic coaches offered a sense of comfort, direction, and motivation. (2) Cathartic experience: the program helped them process complex emotions, reframe their perspectives, and cultivate a more positive outlook on life and their injury. Many participants, new to guided expressive writing, found the process therapeutic and transformative. (3) Acceptance of life: the cumulative impact of the sessions fostered self-compassion, forgiveness, empowerment, and self-advocacy. Participants reported reduced feelings of loneliness, a greater sense of community, and profound positive changes, expressing the desire to continue writing beyond the program. Conclusions: The sudden onset of lifelong disability due to SCI leads to profound physical, mental, and social challenges. The coach-guided expressive writing program enhanced the emotional processing and articulation, coping mechanisms, and overall well-being of the participants. These results highlight the potential of expressive writing programs as accessible and valuable rehabilitative interventions for individuals with SCI.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.168
GPT teacher head0.649
Teacher spread0.481 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207