Background/Objective: The end goal of clinical care and clinical research involving spinal cord injury (SCI) is to improve the overall ability of persons living with SCI to function on a daily basis. Neurologic recovery does not always translate into functional recovery. Thus, sensitive outcome measures designed to assess functional status relevant to SCI are important to develop. Method: Evaluation of currently available SCI functional outcome measures by a multinational work group. Results: The 4 measures that fit the prespecified inclusion criteria were the Modified Barthel Index (MBI), the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), the Quadriplegia Index of Function (QIF), and the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM). The MBI and the QIF were found to have minimal evidence for validity, whereas the FIM and the SCIM were found to be reliable and valid. The MBI has little clinical utility for use in the SCI population. Likewise, the FIM applies mainly when measuring burden of care, which is not necessarily a reflection of functional recovery. The QIF is useful for measuring functional recovery but only in a subpopulation of people with SCI, and substantial validity data are still required. The SCIM is the only functional recovery outcome measure designed specifically for SCI. Conclusions: The multinational work group recommends that the latest version of the SCIM (SCIM III) continue to be refined and validated and subsequently implemented worldwide as the primary functional recovery outcome measure for SCI. The QIF may continue to be developed and validated for use as a supplemental tool for the nonambulatory tetraplegic population.

No abstract

No abstract

Principles pertaining to the relationship between in-context lifestyle and pressure ulcer risk underscore previous quantitative findings, but also lead to new understandings of how risk unfolds in everyday life situations. Pressure ulcer prevention for community-dwelling adults with SCI can potentially be enhanced by incorporating principles, such as the decay of prevention behaviors or lifestyle trade-off, that highlight special patterns indicative of elevated risk. The identified principles can be used to theoretically drive future research or to guide innovative lifestyle-focused intervention approaches. Public policies that promote short-term preventive interventions at critical junctures throughout a person's life should be considered.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01999816.

Background/Objective: To collect data from therapists regarding criteria for use and activities that individuals with C4-C5 tetraplegia can perform using a mobile arm support (MAS) that they otherwise could not. Reasons for nonuse, equipment design limitations, and therapist training needs were also studied. Methods: A modified Delphi approach was used to conduct an e-mail survey for which the response to each question was analyzed and used to formulate the subsequent question. Setting: Rehabilitation centers. Participants: Eighteen occupational therapists (most affiliated with 1 of the federally designated Model Spinal Cord Injury Systems) with extensive experience in the treatment of individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Results: The key physical prerequisite for successful use of the MAS was at least minimal strength of the deltoid and biceps muscles; 92% of respondents indicated that they would fit an MAS for motivated patients having very weak (,2/5) biceps and deltoid muscles. According to the therapists, 100% (n ¼ 30) of their clients were able to perform at least 1 activity using a MAS that they were unable to perform without the device. These activities included (in descending frequency) eating, page turning, driving a power wheelchair, brushing teeth, keyboarding, writing, name signing, drawing, painting, scratching nose, playing board games, accessing electronic devices, drinking, and grooming. Equipment design limitations included increased wheelchair width and problems managing the arms while reclining. Conclusions: Mobile arm supports allow persons with C4-C5 tetraplegia to engage in activities that they otherwise cannot perform with their arms.

Background Randomized trials of complex, non-pharmacologic interventions implemented in home and community settings, such as the University of Southern California (USC)–Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center (RLANRC) Pressure Ulcer Prevention Study (PUPS), present unique challenges with respect to: (a) participant recruitment and retention, (b) intervention delivery and fidelity, (c) randomization and assessment, and (d) potential inadvertent treatment effects. Purpose We describe the methods employed to address the challenges confronted in implementing PUPS. In this randomized controlled trial, we are assessing the efficacy of a complex, preventive intervention in reducing the incidence of, and costs associated with, the development of medically serious pressure ulcers in people with spinal cord injury. Method Individuals with spinal cord injury recruited from RLANRC were assigned to either a 12-month preventive intervention group or a standard care control group. The primary outcome is the incidence of serious pressure ulcers with secondary endpoints including ulcer-related surgeries, medical treatment costs, and quality of life. These outcomes are assessed at 12 and 24 months after randomization. Additionally, we are studying the mediating mechanisms that account for intervention outcomes. Results PUPS has been successfully implemented, including recruitment of the target sample size of 170 participants, assurance of the integrity of intervention protocol delivery with an average 90% treatment adherence rate, and enactment of the assessment plan. However, implementation has been replete with challenges. To meet recruitment goals, we instituted a five-pronged approach customized for an underserved, ethnically diverse population. In intervention delivery, we increased staff time to overcome economic and cultural barriers to retention and adherence. To ensure treatment fidelity and replicability, we monitored intervention protocol delivery in accord with a rigorous plan. Finally, we have overcome unanticipated assessment and design concerns related to: (a) determining pressure ulcer incidence/severity, (b) randomization imbalance, and (c) inadvertent potential control group contamination. Limitations We have addressed the most daunting challenges encountered in the recruitment, assessment, and intervention phases of PUPS. Some challenges and solutions may not apply to trials conducted in other settings. Conclusions Overcoming challenges has required a multifaceted approach incorporating individualization, flexibility, and persistence as well as the ability to implement needed mid-course corrections.

Individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) use wheelchairs for mobility and for full participation in their daily activities. The use of wheelchairs, however, can increase the risk of pressure ulcers. This study focused on wheelchair users' perceptions of the interplay between their wheeled mobility and the development of pressure ulcers by performing a secondary analysis of data gathered during a 2-year ethnographic study of 20 community-dwelling adults with SCI. Data from a subset of these individuals are described; each of these stories contains a pressure ulcer risk episode related to wheeled mobility or cushion use. Identified risk episodes were associated with wheelchair selection, wheelchair adjustment, habituation to new equipment, lifestyle choices, and challenging life contexts. Examples highlighted the crucial relationship between individuals' minute-to-minute decision-making and pressure ulcer risk.