medigraphic.com
ISSN 1405-8871 (Print)

2021, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Aten Fam 2021; 28 (2)

Characterization of Disability in Spinal Cord Trauma Patients Using whodas 2.0

Páez POD, Gualdrón SEL, Melo GAR, Ortiz CMV

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 89-94
PDF size: 227.60 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To characterize the functioning profile of patients with sequelae of spinal cord trauma, using whodas 2.0 (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0), in the municipality of Samacá, Boyacá (Colombia). Methods: cross-sectional study, the whodas 2.0 records were evaluated. Applied by interview to all patients with sequelae of spinal cord trauma who lived in the municipality of Samacá between August and September 2019 and who were registered in the databases of the municipality’s health institutions. Results: the records of twelve patients were analyzed, whose level of injury was mostly thoracic. The degree of global disability was mild in 58.3% of patients and moderate in 41.7%. By domains, disability in mobility and participation was present in 100% of the patients. Other affected domains were activities of daily living, mainly compromising those corresponding work and housework, and the relationship domain in the corresponding to difficulty in sexual activity. Conclusions: the most affected functional domains in patients with spinal cord trauma were mobility and participation. The whodas 2.0 is useful in the assessment of functional profile and facilitates the creation of community-based rehabilitation programs aimed to improve functionality of these patients.


REFERENCES

  1. Rabinstein AA. Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury. Contin Lifelong Learn Neurol. 2018;24:551-66.

  2. Singh A, Tetreault L, Kalsi-Ryan S, Nouri A, Fehlings MG. Global prevalence and incidence of traumatic spinal cord injury. Clin Epidemiol. 2014;6:309-31.

  3. Chen Y, Tang Y, Vogel LC, Devivo MJ. Causes of spinal cord injury. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2013;19(1):1-8.

  4. Hachem LD, Ahuja CS, Fehlings MG. Assessment and management of acute spinal cord injury: From point of injury to rehabilitation. J Spinal Cord Med. 2017;40(6):665-75.

  5. Carvajal C, Pacheco C, Gómez-Rojo C, Calderón J, Cadavid C, Jaimes F. Características clínicas y demográficas de pacientes con trauma raquimedular. Experiencia de seis años. Acta Médica Colomb. 2015;40(1):45-50.

  6. Alizadeh A, Dyck SM, Karimi-Abdolrezaee S. Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: An Overview of Pathophysiology, Models and Acute Injury Mechanisms. Front Neurol. 2019;10:1-25.

  7. Kader M, Perera NKP, Sohrab Hossain M, Islam R. Socio-demographic and injury-related factors contributing to activity limitations and participation restrictions in people with spinal cord injury in Bangladesh. Spinal Cord. 2017;56(3):239-46.

  8. WHO. Clasificación Internacional del Funcionamiento. World Health Organization. 2001. 1-1189 p.

  9. Yoon SY, Leigh JH, Lee J, Kim WH. Comparing activity and participation between acquired brain injury and spinal-cord injury in community-dwelling people with severe disability using whodas 2.0. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:3031.

  10. Tarvonen-Schröder S, Tenovuo O, Kaljonen A, Laimi K. Comparing disability between traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury using the 12- item whodas 2.0 and the WHO minimal generic data set covering functioning and health. Clin Rehabil. 2018;32(12):1676-83.

  11. Pérez-Parra JE, Henao-Lema CP. Relación entre complicaciones clínicas y discapacidad en población colombiana con lesion medular: Resultados desde el WHO-DAS II. Aquichan. 2013;13(2):173-85.

  12. Revirol K. Medición de la Salud y la Discapacidad [Internet]. [Citado 2020 Nov 3]. Disponible en: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/170500

  13. Noonan VK, Kopec JA, Noreau L, Singer J, Mâsse LC, Zhang H, et al. Comparing the validity of five participation instruments in persons with spinal conditions. J Rehabil Med. 2010;42(8):724-34.

  14. Simpson LA, Eng JJ, Hsieh JTC, Wolfe DL. The health and life priorities of individuals with spinal cord injury: A systematic review. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29(8):1548-55.

  15. Chiu TY, Finger ME, Fellinghauer CS, Escorpizo R, Chi WC, Liou TH, et al. Validation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in adults with spinal cord injury in Taiwan: a psychometric study. Spinal Cord. 2019;57(6):516-24.

  16. De Wolf AC, Tate RL, Lannin NA, Middleton J, Lane-Brown A, Cameron ID. The world health or ganizati on disability assessment scale, whodas II: Reliability and validity in the measurement of activity and participati on in a spinal cord injury population. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(9):747-55.

  17. Tarvonen-Schröder S, Kaljonen A, Laimi K. Utility of the world Health Organization disability assessment schedule and the World Health Organization minimal generic set of domains of functioning and health in spinal cord injury. J Rehabil Med. 2019;51(1):40-6.

  18. Huang SW, Wang W Te, Chou LC, Liou TH, Lin HW. Risk of dementia in patients with spinal cord injury: A nationwide population-based cohort study. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34(3):615-22.

  19. Teherán AA, Castro OJ, Frade LL. Incidencia y Características del Trauma Raquimedular en un Hospital de III Nivel, Bogotá 2011-2014. Panam J Trauma, Crit Care Emerg Surg. 2016;5(3):140-7.

  20. Rezaei M, Sharifi A, Vaccaro AR, Rahimi-Movaghar V. Home-Based Rehabilitation Programs: Promising Field to Maximize Function of Patients with Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury. Asian J Neurosurg. 2019;14:634-40.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com