Subjective well-being and severe motor impairments: the Tetrafigap survey on the long-term outcome of tetraplegic spinal cord injured persons
The purpose of the research described in this article is to study the effects of severe motor impairments on a person's well-being, by attempting to throw light upon the inconsistencies found in the previous literature, which are due to problems of a conceptual and methodological nature. The data were gathered during the Tetrafigap survey on the long-term outcome of tetraplegic persons in France. This survey involved 1668 tetraplegic spinal cord injured people. We examine the relationships between the overall assessment of well-being as expressed by the people interviewed, and a range of clinical, social and psycho-social factors. A progressive approach, along with the use of adjustments via linear regressions, has allowed us to identify certain confounding factors, and to analyse the respective effects of the different types of variables studied. Thus current age, the age at which the impairment occurred and having or not having a professional activity do not have any direct links with the assessment of well-being, whereas the existence of pain and the subjective assessment of one's own independence and of the severity of one's disability are predictive factors. The functional independence indicators are only linked to well-being when they relate to situations in which the dependence creates embarrassment due to socio-cultural taboos. The loss of autonomy only affects well-being in as much as it imposes limits to social activity, whether they be relational or occupational. Living as a couple is a negative predictive factor if the couple were together prior to the impairment occurring. The overall results demonstrate the importance of moving beyond any conception of the impact of the impairments on well-being that is too exclusively focused on the individual, and of integrating the socio-cultural meanings of handicap situations and the dynamics of the interactions which take place therein.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 52 (2001)
Issue (Month): 3 (February)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:52:y:2001:i:3:p:369-384. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.