Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring Quality of Life in Spinal Cord Injury

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Measuring Spinal Cord Injury

  • 431 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter aims to describe and evaluate the assessment tools for evaluating Quality of Life (QoL) in people with SCI through a systematic review of scientific literature. The systematic review was conducted in line with COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) on Pubmed, Scopus, Cinahl, and Web of Science. After removing duplicates, 3333 papers were screened. Of these, 476 were included in this systematic review. Among these, 45 papers were considered for this chapter. Results show 29 assessment tools that evaluate QoL area in persons with SCI. Among the 29 tools included in this chapter resulted that most scales evaluate Health-Related QoL, community integration, and sensorimotor, and prehension functions. The most common assessment tools are the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOLBREF), which is a questionnaire composed of four domains: Physical Capacity, psychological well-being, social relationships, and environment, and the Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ), which addresses three central factors of integration: home competency, social integration, and productive activity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Gecht J, Mainz V, Boecker M, et al. Development of a short scale for assessing economic environmental aspects in patients with spinal diseases using Rasch analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0767-9.

  2. Hitzig SL, Romero Escobar EM, Noreau L, Craven BC. Validation of the reintegration to normal living index for community-dwelling persons with chronic spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.07.200.

  3. Williams A. Do we really need to measure the quality of life? Br J Hosp Med. 1988;39(3):181.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Robnett RH, Gliner JA. Qual-OT: a quality of life assessment tool. Occup Ther J Res. 1995. https://doi.org/10.1177/153944929501500304.

  5. Castelnuovo G, Giusti EM, Manzoni GM, et al. What is the role of the placebo effect for pain relief in neurorehabilitation? Clinical implications from the Italian consensus conference on pain in neurorehabilitation. Front Neurol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00310.

  6. Marquez MA, De Santis R, Ammendola V, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the “spinal cord injury-falls concern scale” in the Italian population. Spinal Cord. 2018;56(7):712–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-018-0070-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Berardi A, De Santis R, Tofani M, et al. The Wheelchair Use Confidence Scale: Italian translation, adaptation, and validation of the short form. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(4):i. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2017.1357053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Anna B, Giovanni G, Marco T, et al. The validity of rasterstereography as a technological tool for the objectification of postural assessment in the clinical and educational fields: pilot study. In: Advances in intelligent systems and computing. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23884-1_8.

  9. Panuccio F, Berardi A, Marquez MA, et al. Development of the pregnancy and motherhood evaluation questionnaire (PMEQ) for evaluating and measuring the impact of physical disability on pregnancy and the management of motherhood: a pilot study. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;2020:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2020.1802520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Amedoro A, Berardi A, Conte A, et al. The effect of aquatic physical therapy on patients with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2020.102022.

  11. Dattoli S, Colucci M, Soave MG, et al. Evaluation of pelvis postural systems in spinal cord injury patients: outcome research. J Spinal Cord Med. 2018;43:185–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Berardi A, Galeoto G, Guarino D, et al. Construct validity, test-retest reliability, and the ability to detect change of the Canadian occupational performance measure in a spinal cord injury population. Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41394-019-0196-6.

  13. Ponti A, Berardi A, Galeoto G, Marchegiani L, Spandonaro C, Marquez MA. Quality of life, concern of falling and satisfaction of the sit-ski aid in sit-skiers with spinal cord injury: observational study. Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41394-020-0257-x.

  14. Panuccio F, Galeoto G, Marquez MA, et al. General sleep disturbance scale (GSDS-IT) in people with spinal cord injury: a psychometric study. Spinal Cord. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-020-0500-0.

  15. Monti M, Marquez MA, Berardi A, Tofani M, Valente D, Galeoto G. The multiple sclerosis intimacy and sexuality questionnaire (MSISQ-15): validation of the Italian version for individuals with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-020-0469-8.

  16. Galeoto G, Colucci M, Guarino D, et al. Exploring validity, reliability, and factor analysis of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology in an Italian population: a cross-sectional study. Occup Ther Heal Care. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380577.2018.1522682.

  17. Colucci M, Tofani M, Trioschi D, Guarino D, Berardi A, Galeoto G. Reliability and validity of the Italian version of Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology 2.0 (QUEST-IT 2.0) with users of mobility assistive device. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1668975.

  18. Berardi A, Galeoto G, Lucibello L, Panuccio F, Valente D, Tofani M. Athletes with disability’ satisfaction with sport wheelchairs: an Italian cross sectional study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1800114.

  19. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Rev Esp Nutr Human Diet. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.

  20. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.

  21. Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0.

  22. Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4.

  23. Rintala DH, Novy DM, Garza HM, Young ME, High WM, Chiou-Tan FY. Psychometric properties of a Spanish-language version of the community integration questionnaire (CIQ). Rehabil Psychol. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.47.2.144.

  24. Hirsh AT, Braden AL, Craggs JG, Jensen MP. Psychometric properties of the community integration questionnaire in a heterogeneous sample of adults with physical disability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.05.004.

  25. Kratz AL, Chadd E, Jensen MP, Kehn M, Kroll T. An examination of the psychometric properties of the community integration questionnaire (CIQ) in spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1179/2045772313y.0000000182.

  26. Gontkovsky ST, Russum P, Stokic DS. Comparison of the CIQ and chart short form in assessing community integration in individuals with chronic spinal cord injury: a pilot study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2009. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-2009-0467.

  27. Ioncoli M, Berardi A, Tofani M, et al. Crosscultural validation of the community integration questionnaire-revised in an Italian population. Occup Ther Int. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8916541.

  28. Post MWM, van de Port IGL, Kap B, Berdenis van Berlekom SH. Development and validation of the Utrecht scale for evaluation of clinical rehabilitation (USER). Clin Rehabil. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215509341524.

  29. Van Der Zee CH, Post MW, Brinkhof MW, Wagenaar RC. Comparison of the Utrecht scale for evaluation of rehabilitation – participation with the ICF measure of participation and activities screener and the WHO disability assessment schedule ii in persons with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.08.236.

  30. Mader L, Post MWM, Ballert CS, Michel G, Stucki G, Brinkhof MWG. Metric properties of the Utrecht scale for evaluation of rehabilitation-participation (user-participation) in persons with spinal cord injury living in Switzerland. J Rehabil Med. 2016. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2010.

  31. Jang Y, Hsieh CL, Wang YH, Wu YH. A validity study of the WHOQOL-BREF assessment in persons with traumatic spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2004.02.032.

  32. Lin MR, Hwang HF, Chen CY, Chiu WT. Comparisons of the brief form of the world health organization quality of life and short form-36 for persons with spinal cord injuries. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.phm.0000247780.64373.0e.

  33. Salvador-De La Barrera S, Mora-Boga R, Ferreiro-Velasco ME, et al. A validity study of the Spanish—World Health Organization quality of life short version instrument in persons with traumatic spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-018-0139-2.

  34. Chapin MH, Miller SM, Ferrins JM, Chan F, Rubin SE. Psychometric validation of a subjective well-being measure for people with spinal cord injuries. Disabil Rehabil. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280410001714772.

  35. Miller SM, Chan F, Ferrin JM, Lin CP, Chan JYC. Confirmatory factor analysis of the World Health Organization quality of life questionnaire-brief version for individuals with spinal cord injury. Rehabil Couns Bull. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355208316806.

  36. Lee KJ, Jang HI, Choi H. Korean translation and validation of the WHOQOL-DIS for people with spinal cord injury and stroke. Disabil Health J. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2016.12.017.

  37. Geyh S, Fellinghauer BAG, Kirchberger I, Post MWM. Cross-cultural validity of four quality of life scales in persons with spinal cord injury. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-94.

  38. May LA, Warren S. Measuring quality of life of persons with spinal cord injury: substantive and structural validation. Qual Life Res. 2001. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013027520429.

  39. May LA, Warren S. Measuring quality of life of persons with spinal cord injury: external and structural validity. Spinal Cord. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101311.

  40. Reis PAM, Carvalho ZM de F, Darder JJT, Oriá MOB, Studart RMB, Maniva SJC de F. Cross-cultural adaptation of the quality of life index spinal cord injury – version III. Rev da Esc Enferm. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0080-623420150000300007.

  41. Kovacs FM, Barriga A, Royuela A, Seco J, Zamora J. Spanish adaptation of the quality of life index-spinal cord injury version. Spinal Cord. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2015.200.

  42. Catalano D, Kim JH, Ditchman NM, uk SH, Lee J, Chan F. The sense of well-being inventory as a quality of life measure for people with spinal cord injury. Aust J Rehabil Couns. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1375/jrc.16.2.57.

  43. Amtmann D, Bocell FD, Bamer A, et al. Psychometric properties of the satisfaction with life scale in people with traumatic brain, spinal cord, or burn injury: a National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research model system study. Assessment. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117693921.

  44. Post MW, Van Leeuwen CM, Van Koppenhagen CF, De Groot S. Validity of the life satisfaction questions, the life satisfaction questionnaire, and the satisfaction with life scale in persons with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.03.025.

  45. Tulsky DS, Kisala PA, Lai JS, Carlozzi N, Hammel J, Heinemann AW. Developing an item bank to measure economic quality of life for individuals with disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.02.030.

  46. Forchheimer M, McAweeney M, Tate DG. Use of the SF-36 among persons with spinal cord injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PHM.0000124441.78275.C9.

  47. Luther SL, Kromrey J, Powell-Cope G, et al. A pilot study to modify the SF-36V physical functioning scale for use with veterans with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2006.05.010.

  48. Lee BB, King MT, Simpson JM, et al. Validity, responsiveness, and minimal important difference for the SF-6D health utility scale in a spinal cord injured population. Value Heal. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00311.x.

  49. Engel L, Bryan S, Evers SMAA, Dirksen CD, Noonan VK, Whitehurst DGT. Exploring psychometric properties of the SF-6D, a preference-based health-related quality of life measure, in the context of spinal cord injury. Qual Life Res. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0677-9.

  50. Lee BB, Simpson JM, King MT, Haran MJ, Marial O. The SF-36 walk-wheel: a simple modification of the SF-36 physical domain improves its responsiveness for measuring health status change in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2008.65.

  51. Tasiemski T, Brewer BW. Athletic identity, sport participation, and psychological adjustment in people with spinal cord injury. Adapt Phys Act Q. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.28.3.233.

  52. Shabany M, Nasrabadi AN, Rahimi-Movaghar V, Mansournia MA, Mohammadi N, Pruitt SD. Reliability and validity of the Persian version of the spinal cord injury lifestyle scale and the health behavior questionnaire in persons with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-017-0056-9.

  53. Pruitt SD, Wahlgren DR, Epping-Jordan JE, Rossi AL. Health behavior in persons with spinal cord injury: development and initial validation of an outcome measure. Spinal Cord. 1998. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3100649.

  54. Post MWM, Adriaansen JJE, Charlifue S, Biering-Sørensen F, Van Asbeck FWA. Good validity of the international spinal cord injury quality of life basic data set. Spinal Cord. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2015.99.

  55. Pattanakuhar S, Suttinoon L, Wongpakaran T, Tongprasert S. The reliability and validity of the international spinal cord injury quality of life basic data set in people with spinal cord injuries from a middle-income country: a psychometric study of the Thai version. Spinal Cord. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-020-0468-9.

  56. Lin C-P, Wang C-C, Fujikawa M, et al. Psychometric validation of the brief adaptation to disability scale-revised for persons with spinal cord injury in Taiwan. Rehabil Res Policy, Educ. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1891/2168-6653.27.3.223.

  57. Ebrahimzadeh MH, Makhmalbaf H, Soltani-Moghaddas SH, Mazloumi SM. The spinal cord injury quality-of-life-23 questionnaire, Iranian validation study. J Res Med Sci. 2014;19:349–54.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Renwick R, Nourhaghighi N, Manns PJ, Rudman DL. Quality of life for people with physical disabilities: a new instrument. Int J Rehabil Res. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004356-200312000-00005.

  59. Laman H, Lankhorst GJ. Subjective weighting of disability: an approach to quality of life assessment in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 1994. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638289409166613.

  60. Van Leeuwen CMC, Van Der Woude LHV, Post MWM. Validity of the mental health subscale of the SF-36 in persons with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2012.33.

  61. Van Brakel WH, Anderson AM, Mutatkar RK, et al. The participation scale: measuring a key concept in public health. Disabil Rehabil. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280500192785.

  62. Krause JS, Reed KS. Life satisfaction and self-reported problems after spinal cord injury: measurement of underlying dimensions. Rehabil Psychol. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016555.

  63. Noreau L, Cobb J, Bélanger LM, Dvorak MF, Leblond J, Noonan VK. Development and assessment of a community follow-up questionnaire for the rick Hansen spinal cord injury registry. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.03.006.

  64. Biering-Sørensen F, Biering-Sørensen M, Hilden J. Reproducibility of nordic sleep questionnaire in spinal cord injured. Paraplegia. 1994. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.1994.124.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Anna Berardi & Giovanni Galeoto

  2. R.O.M.A. Rehabilitation Outcome Measures Assessment, Non-Profit Organization, Rome, Italy

    Marina D’Angelo, Francescaroberta Panuccio & Giulia Grieco

Authors
  1. Anna Berardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marina D’Angelo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francescaroberta Panuccio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giulia Grieco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giovanni Galeoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Galeoto .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Giovanni Galeoto

  2. Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Anna Berardi

  3. Department of Neurorehabilitation and Robotics, Bambino Gesù Paediatric Hospital, Rome, Italy

    Marco Tofani

  4. Universidad Fernando Pessoa-Canarias, Las Palmas, Spain

    Maria Auxiliadora Marquez

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Berardi, A., D’Angelo, M., Panuccio, F., Grieco, G., Galeoto, G. (2021). Measuring Quality of Life in Spinal Cord Injury. In: Galeoto, G., Berardi, A., Tofani, M., Auxiliadora Marquez, M. (eds) Measuring Spinal Cord Injury. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68382-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68382-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-68381-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-68382-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation