4.6 Article

Living with a spinal cord injury: a grounded theory approach

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING
Volume 17, Issue 5A, Pages 116-124

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02117.x

Keywords

grounded theory; nurses; nursing; qualitative research; rehabilitation; spinal cord injury

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims. This paper reports a study which examined patients' experiences of suffering a spinal cord injury. Background. Spinal cord injury has major bio-psycho-social and spiritual implications for patients. However, very limited research exists regarding the experience of patients with spinal cord injury in Taiwan or other countries worldwide. Method. Grounded theory was used to explore the psychosocial implications for patients of spinal cord injury. Data collection and analysis. Data were collected from October 2002 - March 2003 through tape-recorded, semi-structured interviews and complete observation of a group discussion focusing on patients with tetraplegia, in a rehabilitation hospital in Taiwan. The number of patients with spinal cord injury interviewed for this study was 15, involving 18 interviews. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently. Results. The findings resulted in the core category 'living with a spinal cord injury' and identify the experiences of suffering a spinal cord injury. Three stages were identified as the individual experience, including four categories: stage 1 A catastrophic life event, stage 2 Confront challenges and stage 3 Moving forward or Withdraw from society. Conclusions. This study shows that patients suffering a spinal cord injury have to find their own way and learn to live with their disability. Patients who did better in living with spinal cord injury point could move forward, otherwise, they may withdraw from society. Relevance to clinical practice. Health professionals need to recognize patients' experiences, perceptions and needs, to provide better nursing care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available