Quality of life and its predictors in Thai patients following multiple trauma

2Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to describe the quality of life (QOL) and to examine factors predicting the QOL among the demographic characteristics, injury severity, effect on work, pain intensity, disability point, coping and resilience factors, in Thai patients following multiple injuries. Design/methodology/approach: A cross-sectional research design was used. A total of multiple 106 trauma patients were obtained by simple random sampling. The patients were between 18 and 59 years of age, and had visited an outpatient clinic at one of three randomly selected tertiary hospitals in Metropolitan Bangkok, Thailand. Dependent variable was QOL measured by Trauma Outcome Profile (TOP) questionnaire. Independent variables were demographic and illness-related factors collected from patients’ medical records, coping measured by the Jalowiec Coping Scale, pain measured by the Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire (CPGQ) and resilience measured by the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis. Findings: Except for satisfaction, the other nine dimensions of the QOL in patients following traumatic injuries were poor. Pain intensity was the most influential factor predicting the QOL, but the patient’s resilience, emotional coping and disability points were also able to predict the QOL. Originality/value: The TOP, CPGQ and CD-RISC-10 were translated into Thai and used in the current study for the first time. The results of the study revealed that the pain intensity, and the patient’s resilience and coping influenced the QOL more than other factors, such as the demographic data and injury severity.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Saengniam, W., & Jitpanya, C. (2019). Quality of life and its predictors in Thai patients following multiple trauma. Journal of Health Research, 33(4), 314–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHR-09-2018-0091

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free