Dor neuropática central após lesão medular traumática: capacidade funcional e aspectos sociais

Abstract

Estudo de caso comparativo com o objetivo de avaliar a capacidade funcional e os aspectos sociais de dois pacientes, ambos com lesão medular traumática, sem e com dor neuropática central associada, respectivamente. Para avaliar a capacidade funcional, foi utilizado como instrumento o Functional Independence Measure ou Escala de Independência Funcional. E para avaliar os aspectos sociais foi construído o ecomapa de cada paciente, preconizado pelo modelo Calgary de avaliação de famílias. Ambos foram aplicados no domicílio do paciente. Os resultados mostraram que o paciente com dor neuropática central secundária à lesão medular possui baixa capacidade funcional e precária rede social de apoio, quando comparado com o paciente com as mesmas condições, porém sem dor associada.

Burden of care and its impact on health-related quality of life of caregivers of individuals with spinal cord injury

“…This strategy is extended to people with SCI (3) . The QOL of an individual after an SCI depends on various factors, among them: multidisciplinary care and preparedness for care to be continued at home, as well as the participation of patients in rehabilitation programs.…”

Genogram and ecomap: brazilian nursing contributions

“…[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] In 20052, [16][17][18][19] 24 Except one, 37 all papers included in the review used the genogram and ecomap as complementary tools for research data collection. One paper was identified in which the contribution of the genogram and the ecomap was explored in undergraduate nursing education and in childcare.…”

“…25 "Individually", these instruments were used: with mental health service users; 15 with mothers of premature children; 6,21 mothers of pre-adolescents; 17 patients with traumatic spinal cord injury; 18 children in early childhood; 26 children with nephrotic syndrome; 30 stoma patients; 22 elderly people [33][34] and young victims of violence. 35 With regard to its construction, in seven papers, the genogram and ecomap were elaborated based on an individual interview; 6,[17][18]21,23,33,35 in 17 during group meetings; [2][3][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][19][20][28][29]32,34 and, in three, 22,24,30 both individual and group interviews were used. In seven papers, 7,25-27,31,36-37 the authors did not mention how the instruments were constructed.…”

“…Among the papers selected, in 19, the interviews were held at home, 3,6,8,10,12,[17][18][19]21,24,[26][27][28][29][32][33][34][35][36] in five at the health service 9,13,15,20,23 and, in six, both at home and at the health service. 2,11,16,22,25,30 In four papers, the place where the interviews were held was not mentioned.…”

“…In 12 papers, the construction process was not referred to. 7,[10][11][17][18][19]23,[26][27][28]31,37 The difficulties and facilities related to the use of the genogram and ecomap were described in 14 papers, 2,8,12,[15][16]19,[21][22]24,27,29,33,35,37 while the authors of the other 20 studies did not mention these aspects. Table 1 displays a summary of the papers included in the review, according to the characteristics of the authors, publication year, objectives, facilities and difficulties in the use of these instruments.…”