Effectiveness of a Self-Management Intervention to Promote an Active Lifestyle in Persons With Long-Term Spinal Cord Injury: The HABITS Randomized Clinical Trial

Background. Most people with long-term spinal cord injury (SCI) have a very inactive lifestyle. Higher activity levels have been associated with health benefits and enhanced quality of life. Consequently, encouraging an active lifestyle is important and behavioral interventions are needed to establish durable lifestyle changes. Objective. The Healthy Active Behavioral Intervention in SCI (HABITS) study was aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured self-management intervention to promote an active lifestyle in inactive persons with long-term SCI. Methods. This assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted at 4 specialized SCI units in the Netherlands. Sixty-four individuals with long-term SCI (>10 years), wheelchair-user and physically inactive, were included. Participants were randomized to either a 16-week self-management intervention consisting of group meetings and individual counseling and a book, or to a control group that only received information about active lifestyle by one group meeting and a book. Measurements were performed at baseline, 16 weeks, and 42 weeks. Primary outcome measures were self-reported physical activity and minutes per day spent in wheelchair driving. Secondary outcomes included perceived behavioral control (exercise self-efficacy, proactive coping), stages of change concerning exercise, and attitude toward exercise. Results. Mixed models analyses adjusted for age, sex, level of SCI, time since injury, baseline body mass index, and location did not show significant differences between the intervention and control groups on the primary and secondary outcomes (P ≥.05). Conclusions. A structured 16-week self-management intervention was not effective to change behavior toward a more active lifestyle and to improve perceived behavioral control, stages of change, and attitude

A systematic review on the pros and cons of using a pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair

<p>Objective: To determine the (dis)advantages of transition to a power-assisted wheelchair, and derive the clinical implications for its use or prescription.</p><p>Data sources: Relevant articles published prior to May 2012 were identified using PubMed, Cochrane Library, REHABDATA, CIRRIE and CINAHL databases.</p><p>Review methods: Clinical or (randomized) controlled trials, published in a peer-reviewed journal, comparing power-assisted wheelchair use and hand-rim or powered wheelchair use were eligible. Data quality and validity were assessed by two reviewers independently using the Checklist for Measuring Quality developed by Downs and Black.</p><p>Results: A systematic search yielded 15 cross-over trails with repeated measurement design and one qualitative interview. Methodological quality scored between 9 and 15 points out of the maximum score of 32. Ten studies measuring body function and structure reported reduced strain on the arm and cardiovascular system during power-assisted propulsion compared to hand-rim propulsion. Twelve studies measuring activities and social participation reported precision tasks easier to perform with a hand-rim wheelchair and tasks which require more torque were easier with a power-assisted wheelchair. Social participation was not altered significantly by the use of a hand-rim, powered or power-assisted wheelchair.</p><p>Conclusion: Power-assisted propulsion might be beneficial for subjects in whom independent hand-rim wheelchair propulsion is endangered by arm injury, insufficient arm strength or low cardiopulmonary reserves. Also, subjects who have difficulty propelling a wheelchair in a challenging environment can benefit from power-assisted wheelchair use. Caution is warranted for the additional width and weight in relation to the usual mode of transportation and access to the home environment.</p>

Trajectories in the Course of Life Satisfaction After Spinal Cord Injury: Identification and Predictors

Objective: To identify different life satisfaction trajectories in the period between the start of active spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation and 5 years after discharge, and to find predictors for distinguishing between trajectories. The hypotheses were that different life satisfaction trajectories would be identified and that demographic, lesion, physical, and social characteristics would be predictors of life satisfaction trajectory membership. Design: Multicenter prospective cohort study with measurements at the start of active rehabilitation, after 3 months, at discharge, and 1, 2, and 5 years after discharge. Setting: Eight Dutch rehabilitation centers with specialized SCI units. Participants: Persons (N=225) with recently acquired SCI between the ages of 18 and 65 years were included, and data from 206 persons were analyzed. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Life satisfaction was measured as the sum score of "current life satisfaction" and "current life satisfaction compared with life satisfaction before SCI" (range, 2-13). Results: Five life satisfaction trajectories were identified by using latent class growth mixture modeling: (1) low median scores (3-5) at all time points (27%), (2) intermediate scores (6-7) at all time points (31%), (3) high scores (8-10.5) at all time points (17%), (4) improvements from 3 to 9 (23%), and (5) deterioration from 9 to 4 (2%). Logistic regression showed that predictors of the low versus high life satisfaction trajectory were functional independence and pain. Predictors of the low life satisfaction versus the recovery trajectory were sex and functional independence. These predictors explained only a small part of the total variance. Conclusions: Life satisfaction in people with SCI follows distinct trajectories. Monitoring life satisfaction at the start of active rehabilitation and 3 months later might allow identification of persons at risk for poor long-term adjustment