The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
From the person’s perspective: Perceived problems in functioning among individuals with spinal cord injury in Switzerland
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the main problems in functioning cited by people with spinal cord injury in Switzerland. STUDY DESIGN: Post-coding analysis was conducted based on the open-ended question, "What causes you the most problems since your spinal cord injury?" from the Starter Module of the community survey of the Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Cohort Study, administered between September 2011 and March 2013. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Out of 3,144 eligible subjects, 1,762 answered the open-ended question and cited problems. METHODS: Thematic analysis was used, based on the coding system from the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. RESULTS: The study identified the 10 problems cited most by the participants, and the 5 most-cited problems mentioned by participants from each of the relevant subgroups subdivided by factors including gender and aetiology. Problems linked to complications in body functions (e.g. pain), activities and participation (e.g. leisure) and environment (e.g. design of public buildings) were reported as important. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to priority setting in spinal cord injury by accounting for the person perspective within a large-scale quantitative survey. The results support the value of a comprehensive approach to spinal cord injury.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Chronic pain is highly prevalent in patients after spinal cord injury (SCI).
“Chronic pain is highly prevalent in patients after spinal cord injury (SCI) [1].”
From Virtual walking therapy in neuropathic spinal cord injury pain: a feasibility study (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 37
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Dow B, Haralambous B, Bremner F, Fearn M. What is person- centred healthcare? A literature review. National Ageing Research Institute, State Government Victoria; 2006.
- Pope C, Mays N, editors. Qualitative research in health care. Chapter 1: Qualitative methods in health research. Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing; 2006, p. 1-11.
- Wetzner E, Surca S, Wiese S, Dion A, Roussos Z, Renwick R, et al. Getting on with life: positive experiences of living with a spinal cord injury. Qual Health Res 2011; 21: 1455-1468.
- Anderson KA. Targeting recovery: priorities of the spinal cord- injury population. J Neurotrauma 2004; 10: 1371-1383.
- Vierkant RA. A SAS macro for calculating pootstrapped confidence intervals about a kappa coefficient. Available from: http://www2. sas.com/proceedings/sugi22/STATS/PAPER295.PDF.
- DeVivo MJ, Biering-Sørensen F, Charlifue S, Noonan V, Post M, Stripling T, et al. Executive Committee for the International SCI Data Sets Committees. International Spinal Cord Injury Core Data Set. Spinal Cord 2006, 44: 535-540.
- Adams MM, Hicks AL. Spasticity after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2005; 43: 577-586.
- Sköld C, Levi R, Seiger A. Spasticity after traumatic cord injury: nature, severity and location. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 1548-1557.
Metadata
- Authors
- Rubinelli, S., Glässel, A., & Brach, M.
- Affiliations
- Swiss Paraplegic Research (CH)
- University of Lucerne (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Rubinelli, S
- Venue
- Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
- Published
- 2016
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 235-243
- ISSN
- 1650-1977 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2328973562
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 4.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Spinal Cord Injury Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
- Keywords
- spinal cord injury, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, pain, leisure, public building design, environmental barriers, injury etiology, gender differences, priority setting
- MeSH terms
- Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Aged, Environment, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Perception, Surveys and Questionnaires, Spinal Cord Injuries, Switzerland, Cohort Studies, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
