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

K H Herrmann; I Kirchberger; Fin Biering-Sørensen; A Cieza

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sc.2010.156

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

K H Herrmann, I Kirchberger, Fin Biering-Sørensen, A Cieza

19 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original language	English
Journal	Spinal Cord
Volume	49
Issue number	4
Pages (from-to)	534-43
Number of pages	10
ISSN	1362-4393
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2010.156
Publication status	Published - Apr 2011

Access to Document

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sc.2010.156

Cite this

@article{f3d933e8ced3470180704baac3808003,

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

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.",

author = "Herrmann, {K H} and I Kirchberger and Fin Biering-S{\o}rensen and A Cieza",

year = "2011",

month = apr,

doi = "http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sc.2010.156",

language = "English",

volume = "49",

pages = "534--43",

journal = "Spinal Cord",

issn = "1362-4393",

publisher = "nature publishing group",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differences in functioning of individuals with tetraplegia and paraplegia according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)

AU - Herrmann, K H

AU - Kirchberger, I

AU - Biering-Sørensen, Fin

AU - Cieza, A

PY - 2011/4

Y1 - 2011/4

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sc.2010.156

DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sc.2010.156

M3 - Journal article

SN - 1362-4393

VL - 49

SP - 534

EP - 543

JO - Spinal Cord

JF - Spinal Cord

IS - 4

ER -

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

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this