Cognitive appraisals of disability in persons with traumatic spinal cord injury: a scoping review.

STUDY DESIGN: Scoping review. OBJECTIVES: To describe the meaning of cognitive appraisals, their relation with outcome. measures, and adapted appraisal scales after Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) in the existing literature. METHODS: This review was performed according to the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) framework that consisted of five steps: setting the review question, searching the literature, selecting and classifying the studies, charting the data, and summarizing the results. Published articles from 1990 to 16 May 2020 related to cognitive appraisal, persons with traumatic SCI (TSCI), and persons older than 18 years were identified by searching by key terms in four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase). RESULTS: The included studies (n = 26) were categorized into three categories. Categories focused on the meanings of cognitive appraisals following TSCI (i.e., appraisals being complex and context-related, or in general definition how persons with TSCI interpret their disability and how they evaluate the resources available to respond to it), the relationship between cognitive appraisals and physical/psychological/social/ outcomes, and appraisals of disability (including the use of appraisals as a predictor of subsequent positive or negative consequences). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrated that a cognitive appraisal of TSCI is critical to longer-term rehabilitation outcomes. A combination of physical and psychological-based interventions can help to modify negative or dysfunctional appraisals. Cognitive appraisal in TSCI seems to vary from person to person. To predict it and develop a rehabilitation plan, future research needs to focus on the relationship between cognitive appraisal and person-related factors, including demographic characteristics.

How Can Policymakers be Encouraged to Support People With Spinal Cord Injury-Scoping Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Scoping review. OBJECTIVE: Regarding that inappropriate medical care approaches, absence of rehabilitation services, and existing barriers in physical, social, and policy environments lead to poor outcomes in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) and provision for appropriate interventions and care must be created by health policymakers, we conducted this scoping review to investigate how policymakers can be persuaded to set new plans for individuals with SCI. METHODS: This review was performed according to Arksey and O'Malley's framework. PubMed was searched in February2019 without language limitation. We looked for other potential gray literature sources and some professional websites. References sections of selected articles were also scanned for other relevant literature. RESULTS: We included literature that met inclusion criteria to answer our research question. The literature was divided into 3 categories. The first category included economic impact of SCI. The second category included the role of research and developing research strategy. The third category included effective interaction and communication with policymakers. CONCLUSION: It is essential to consider multiple factors for influencing policymakers' decisions. These factors include knowing how to communicate with policymakers and presenting constructive ideas, providing a source of valid, reliable, and consistent data, considering the role of patients' advocacy groups and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and presentation of the importance of early intervention in reducing healthcare system costs. Ultimately, the goal is to have a comprehensive and flexible plan for influencing policymakers.

Reasons for delayed spinal cord decompression in individuals with traumatic spinal cord injuries in Iran: A qualitative study from the perspective of neurosurgeons.

PURPOSE: The median time from the event leading to the spinal cord injury (SCI) to the time of decompressive surgery is estimated to be 6.9 days in Iran, which is much longer than the proposed ideal time (less than 24 h) in published guidelines. The current qualitative study aimed to determine the reasons for the observed decompression surgery delay in Iran from the perspective of neurosurgeons. METHODS: This qualitative study is designed to perform content analysis on the gathered data from face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 12 Iranian neurosurgeons. RESULTS: The findings of the current study suggest that patient-related factors constitute more than half of the codes extracted from the interviews. Overall, the type of injury, presence of polytrauma, and surgeons' wrong attitude are the main factors causing delayed spinal cord decompression in Iranian patients from the perspective of neurosurgeons. Other notable factors include delay in transferring patients to the trauma center, delay in availability of necessary equipment, and scarce medical personnel. CONCLUSION: In the perspective of neurosurgeons, the type of injury, presence of polytrauma, and surgeons' wrong attitude are the leading reasons for delayed decompressive surgery of individuals with SCI in Iran.

Factors associated with pressure ulcers in patients with complete or sensory-only preserved spinal cord injury: is there any difference between traumatic and nontraumatic causes?

OBJECT: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are common complications in patients with complete spinal cord injury (SCI) or incomplete SCI in which sensory function is spared. Most studies analyzing associated factors of PU and SCI have been performed in cases of traumatic SCI and in just a few cases of nontraumatic SCI. This study was designed to look specifically at the differences in causative factors of PU in cases of traumatic and nontraumatic SCIs. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study evaluating patients with complete and incomplete SCIs (American Spinal Injury Association Grades A and B) under the coverage of the financial, medicosocial, and rehabilitative support provided by the State Welfare Organization of Iran (SWOI). There were 3791 cases of traumatic SCI (63.2%) and 2110 cases of nontraumatic SCI (35.2%). For 94 patients (1.6%), sufficient data were not available. RESULTS: A PU was detected in 39.2% of all patients with an SCI (71.8% of those with traumatic SCI vs 28.2% of those with nontraumatic SCI). A univariate analysis showed a significant association between occupation, education, and the presence of PU in patients with a traumatic SCI (p < 0.05). This contrasted with nontraumatic SCI in which an association between PU and age was noted (p < 0.05). Using logistic regression, traumatic cause, older age, an interval less than 1 year since the onset of SCI, male sex, and single status were found to significantly increase the risk of PU in all patients with an SCI. However, a higher education level had a preventive effect on PU. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed some risk factors for PU in the authors' setting. The authors' findings suggest a possible difference between the risk factors for PU in patients with both types of SCI. Further study on the pathoetiology of these differences is paramount in the future.