Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
OBJECTIVES: To provide a conceptual overview of approaches to quality of life (QOL) measurement and an extensive review of research relating to QOL after TBI; to document subjective QOL of individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI); to explore how subjective QOL differs for people with TBI in comparison to individuals with no disability (ND) and those with spinal cord injury (SCI); and to document the perceptions of unmet important needs and the relationship between such perceptions and subjective QOL. DESIGN: Interview-based data focusing on current perceptions of QOL and unmet important needs, obtained from individuals with TBI, SCI, or ND. Covariance and partial regression analyses were used to explore group differences and to document relationships between variables. SETTING: Individuals drawn from diverse communities across New York State. PARTICIPANTS: TBI group: 430 individuals who identified themselves as having TBI; SCI group: 101 individuals with spinal cord injury; ND group: 187 people who identified themselves as having no disability. Participants were recruited through recruitment ads in general circulation newspapers and newsletters and through contacting a wide variety of community agencies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Two summary QOL indicators: a Global QOL Measure based on two items tapping the individual's emotion-based view of QOL, and a summary score adapted from Flanagan"s Scale of Needs, reflecting the individual's perceptions of total unmet important needs. RESULTS: Both summary QOL indicators were correlated with demographic characteristics. Unmet important needs were stronger in the TBI group than in the SCI and ND groups. Most areas of unmet important need were moderately correlated with the summary QOL indicators. Analyses of covariance showed that severity of injury was a more powerful modulator of post-TBI QOL judgments than the mere fact of TBI. For example, those with the most severe injury (ie, loss of consciousness LOC >1 month) rated their QOL similar to that in the ND group, whereas individuals who had experienced only a brief LOC (<20 minutes) viewed their QOL as significantly lower than that in the ND and SCI groups and lower than other TBI severity subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This exploration of subjective QOL strengthens the argument that after TBI, the insider"s reaction to injury varies greatly within the population. Thus, severity of injury strongly affects perceptions of QOL. The use of a multimethod approach for exploring the reactions and perceptions of QOL has proven useful in this study.
Brown et al. (Sat,) studied this question.