Evaluation of the physical activity scale for individuals with physical disabilities in people with spinal cord injury

59Citations
Citations of this article
141Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Study design:Cross-sectional study.Objectives:To evaluate the physical activity scale for individuals with physical disabilities (PASIPD) in people with spinal cord injury (SCI).Setting:Eight Dutch rehabilitation centers with a specialized SCI unit.Methods:The PASIPD was examined by comparing group scores of people with different personal (age, gender and body mass index) and lesion characteristics (level (paraplegia/tetraplegia), completeness, time since injury (TSI)) in 139 persons with SCI 1 year after discharge from in-patient rehabilitation. Relationships between PASIPD scores and measures of activities (wheelchair skills, Utrecht Activity List, mobility range and social behavior subscales of the SIP68) and fitness (peak oxygen uptake, peak power output and muscular strength) were determined.Results:Persons with tetraplegia had significantly lower PASIPD scores than those with paraplegia (P<0.02). Persons with longer TSI had lower PASIPD scores than persons with shorter TSI (P<0.03). PASIPD scores showed moderate correlations with activities (0.36-0.51, P<0.01) and weak-to-moderate correlations with fitness parameters (0.25-0.36, P<0.05).Conclusion:In a fairly homogeneous group of persons with SCI, 1 year after in-patient rehabilitation, the PASIPD showed weak-to-moderate relationships with activity and fitness parameters. There seems to be a limited association between self-reported activity level and fitness in people with SCI. © 2010 International Spinal Cord Society All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

De Groot, S., Van Der Woude, L. H. V., Niezen, A., Smit, C. A. J., & Post, M. W. M. (2010). Evaluation of the physical activity scale for individuals with physical disabilities in people with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 48(7), 542–547. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2009.178

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