Objective: The objective of this study was to gain greater insight into individuals’ quality of life (QOL) definitions, appraisals, and adaptations following spinal cord injury (SCI).
Design: A mixed-methods design, applying the Schwartz and Sprangers response shift (RS) model. RS is a cognitive process wherein, in response to a change in health status, individuals change internal standards, values, or conceptualization of QOL
Setting: Community-dwelling participants who receive medical treatment at a major Midwestern medical system and nearby Veterans’ Affairs hospital.
Participants: A purposive sample of participants with SCI (N?=?40) completed semi-structured interviews and accompanying quantitative measures.
Interventions: Not applicable.
Outcome Measures: Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis to identify themes. Analysis of variance were performed to detect differences based on themes and QOL, well-being, and demographic and injury characteristics.
Results: Four RS themes were identified, capturing the range of participant perceptions of QOL. The themes ranged from complete RS, indicating active engagement in maintaining QOL, to awareness and comparisons redefining QOL, to a relative lack of RS. Average QOL ratings differed as a function of response shift themes. PROMIS Global Health, Anxiety, and Depression also differed as a function of RS themes.
Conclusion: The RS model contextualizes differences in QOL definitions, appraisals, and adaptations in a way standardized QOL measures alone do not. 相似文献
To analyse and understand vaccination hesitancy discourses, particularly those of people who have decided not to vaccinate their sons and daughters.
Methods
Qualitative study of five individual interviews and two focus groups with people who chose not to vaccinate their children in the province of Granada (Spain).
Results
Mothers and fathers manifest a system of health beliefs different to the biomedical paradigm. From an ethical point of view, they justify their position based on the right to autonomy and responsibility for their decisions. Alleged specific reasons: they doubt administration of several vaccines simultaneously at an early age in a systematic way and without individualising each case; they fear adverse effects and do not understand the variations of the vaccination schedule.
Conclusions
These vaccination hesitancy discourses respond to the individual vs collective conflict; parents defend their right to bring up their children without any interference from the state and focus their responsibility on the individual welfare of their sons and daughters, regardless of the consequences that their actions might have on the collective. In their management of risks, they consider those derived from vaccination more relevant than the individual or collective consequences of not doing so. The vaccines generating most doubts are the more controversial ones within the scientific world. Transparency in communication of adverse effects; authorities respect for other health/disease concepts; banishment of the term “anti-vaccines” from the media and scientific vocabulary, and developing spaces for dialogue are bridges to be built. 相似文献
下载免费PDF全文