The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Differences in functioning of individuals with tetraplegia and paraplegia according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)

Differences in functioning of individuals with tetraplegia and paraplegia according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)
Differences in functioning of individuals with tetraplegia and paraplegia according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)
Study design. Cross-sectional, multicenter study.

Objectives. To identify and quantify the differences in functioning of individuals with tetraplegia versus paraplegia using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a frame of reference.

Setting. International.

Methods. Functional problems of 1048 participants with spinal cord injury in 16 study centers in 14 countries were recorded using ICF categories. The level of significance and odds ratios (OR) for experiencing each of these functional problems were reported for individuals with tetraplegia and paraplegia. Regression models were adjusted for age, age squared, early post-acute or long-term context, gender and for world regions.

Results. Persons with tetraplegia are more at risk than persons with paraplegia to have difficulties in 36.4% categories of the component body functions. In the component body structures, 40% of the categories show significant differences. Individuals with tetraplegia indicate problems in three categories, whereas individuals with paraplegia are more likely to indicate problems in one category. Most categories indicating difficulties (56.6%) for persons with tetraplegia were found for the component activities and participation. The component with the highest congruency was the environmental factors. Overall, 3.7% categories (of the persons with tetraplegia as experienced, 2.4% of the categories as barriers, whereas 4.9% were experienced to be facilitators) obtained OR, indicating individuals with tetraplegia having more difficulties.

Conclusion. The logistic regression analysis identified a variety of differences in functional problems in individuals with tetraplegia compared with individuals with paraplegia. The ICF has the potential to indicate the differences in health conditions.
1362-4393
534-543
Herrmann, K.H.
56843c81-a184-416e-a84c-6aa781cc52e3
Kirchberger, I.
bd845f6f-b025-47a2-8eb4-2ec35773471c
Biering-Sørensen, F.
ef579e15-121d-43c0-83dd-5bc8712b0b1f
Cieza, A.
a0df25c5-ee2c-4580-82b3-d0a75591580e
Herrmann, K.H.
56843c81-a184-416e-a84c-6aa781cc52e3
Kirchberger, I.
bd845f6f-b025-47a2-8eb4-2ec35773471c
Biering-Sørensen, F.
ef579e15-121d-43c0-83dd-5bc8712b0b1f
Cieza, A.
a0df25c5-ee2c-4580-82b3-d0a75591580e

Herrmann, K.H., Kirchberger, I., Biering-Sørensen, F. and Cieza, A. (2011) Differences in functioning of individuals with tetraplegia and paraplegia according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Spinal Cord, 49 (4), 534-543. (doi:10.1038/sc.2010.156). (PMID:21042334)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Study design. Cross-sectional, multicenter study.

Objectives. To identify and quantify the differences in functioning of individuals with tetraplegia versus paraplegia using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a frame of reference.

Setting. International.

Methods. Functional problems of 1048 participants with spinal cord injury in 16 study centers in 14 countries were recorded using ICF categories. The level of significance and odds ratios (OR) for experiencing each of these functional problems were reported for individuals with tetraplegia and paraplegia. Regression models were adjusted for age, age squared, early post-acute or long-term context, gender and for world regions.

Results. Persons with tetraplegia are more at risk than persons with paraplegia to have difficulties in 36.4% categories of the component body functions. In the component body structures, 40% of the categories show significant differences. Individuals with tetraplegia indicate problems in three categories, whereas individuals with paraplegia are more likely to indicate problems in one category. Most categories indicating difficulties (56.6%) for persons with tetraplegia were found for the component activities and participation. The component with the highest congruency was the environmental factors. Overall, 3.7% categories (of the persons with tetraplegia as experienced, 2.4% of the categories as barriers, whereas 4.9% were experienced to be facilitators) obtained OR, indicating individuals with tetraplegia having more difficulties.

Conclusion. The logistic regression analysis identified a variety of differences in functional problems in individuals with tetraplegia compared with individuals with paraplegia. The ICF has the potential to indicate the differences in health conditions.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: April 2011
Organisations: Psychology

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 341101
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/341101
ISSN: 1362-4393
PURE UUID: c141c6bc-d8f5-4868-b0dd-a39d3f89ab07

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 13 Jul 2012 10:22
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 11:34

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: K.H. Herrmann
Author: I. Kirchberger
Author: F. Biering-Sørensen
Author: A. Cieza

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×