Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a probably deadly medical situation, and has far-reaching results on the bodily, psychological, social, and monetary well-being of these affected.1,2 Relying on the placement and severity of the injury, individuals with SCI face a life-long elevated threat of secondary well being situations, useful loss, and elevated dependence, prompting using health-care companies at the next fee than the final inhabitants.3–5 To satisfy their complicated wants, extremely specialised multidisciplinary care is desired for the therapy, rehabilitation, and life-long care of individuals with SCI.2,6 Nonetheless, this institutes a problem for these residing in rural areas. The dearth of native SCI experience, issues with long-distance transportation, and unmet info wants are generally cited the additional they reside from specialised facilities.7,8 To compensate, individuals with SCI are likely to change into significantly greater customers of major care companies.9–12
Major care is outlined by its comprehensiveness, continuity, centeredness, and coordination of care.3,13 In that respect, normal practitioners (GPs) play a vital function in selling well being and in stopping life-threatening sicknesses, hospital admissions, and secondary issues.3,13 Nonetheless, as a result of low prevalence and sporadic encounters with individuals with SCI, GP care might fall behind acute and specialised rehabilitation companies, as GPs expertise doubt about their abilities in offering SCI-specific care.3,4 Equally, individuals with SCI typically report that GPs lack the up-to-date information to ship optimum care, and like to obtain SCI-specific care from specialists.3,10,13 A number of research investigated GP visits of individuals with SCI.10,12,14,15 A cross-sectional examine of Donnelly et al examined the utilization of and entry to major take care of individuals with SCI in america, Canada, and the UK.10 The bulk thought-about their GP essentially the most applicable supplier of care for brand spanking new situations or issues reminiscent of fatigue, ache, and bowel or bladder points.10 GPs have been additionally cited as the primary contact for preventive care, reminiscent of bodily check-ups, blood and urinary specimens, and private issues.10
There is no such thing as a commonplace mannequin of care in Switzerland that outlines care and companies for individuals with SCI throughout the SCI care continuum. Health-care companies are decentralized; all individuals have direct entry to major and specialised care by means of the usual necessary medical insurance. Different plans with decrease premiums can be found however prohibit the selection of supplier.16 Whereas specialised SCI care is the beneficial alternative in Switzerland, GPs remained essentially the most visited health-care professionals by the overwhelming majority of individuals with SCI and the primary level of contact for SCI-specific issues in 44% of circumstances.11,14 Most reported contacting a GP for acute issues at a median of 4.5 visits per yr.11,14 Conversely, SCI specialists have been predominately visited for check-ups by nearly half of the individuals at a median of 1.5 visits per yr and have been additional pronounced as the primary contact of take care of 56% of circumstances.11,14 Nonetheless, specialists’ help and availability of SCI outreach groups have been foreseen as central to assembly the SCI-specific wants of the SCI inhabitants.2,12,14
Up to now, little is understood about why individuals with SCI contact GPs in Swiss rural areas and for which well being issues. Within the absence of outlined roles and tasks in SCI care, understanding the views of individuals with SCI on GP care appears crucial for future roles clarification, planning of well being companies and coaching packages, and sensitizing GPs to the complicated well being wants of this inhabitants.16 With this examine, we purpose to discover the explanations for encounters (RFEs) on the whole follow, the extent to which RFEs are linked to the primary contact of care (GP or specialist), and the perceived competence of GPs in managing SCI well being issues.
Supplies and Strategies
It is a cross-sectional examine based mostly on baseline knowledge of an intervention examine that aimed to reinforce scientific collaboration between extremely specialised SCI facilities and GPs practising in rural Swiss communities by means of medical schooling on SCI-specific matters.17 Particulars on the design, recruitment, and methodology of the examine have been described by Tomaschek et al.17 Individuals with SCI have been eligible to take part in the event that they have been above 16 years of age; residing with SCI for greater than two years at the moment of knowledge assortment; residing additional than a 60-minute car driving distance to any of the 4 facilities for individuals with SCI in Switzerland (Swiss Paraplegic Heart in Nottwil, REHAB in Basel, Clinique Romande de Réadaptation in Sion, College Hospital Balgrist in Zurich), and two SCI outpatient clinics in Lausanne and Bellinzona; and had beforehand participated within the Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Cohort Examine (SwisSCI) group survey of 2017.18 Out of 1530 individuals, 395 have been eligible to take part. Paper-based questionnaires have been despatched by submit with pre-stamped return envelopes in February 2020. Contributors had the choice to finish the questionnaire both on-line or on paper. Inside eight weeks, non-respondents obtained two reminders: by submit and telephonically.
Contributors’ traits included intercourse, age, civil standing, nation of start, residing association, years in formal schooling, employment standing, and language of the questionnaire (German, French, or Italian). Contributors have been additionally requested if they’d a private GP and to report the journey distance in minutes. Contributors have been requested about their first contact for SCI-specific well being issues; choices included (1) GP, (2) specialist with personal follow, (3) specialist at one of many 4 SCI facilities, or (4) different. Contributors who indicated a GP or specialist have been included within the evaluation. Health standing was assessed utilizing a 5-point scale (1 = glorious; 5 = poor). Harm-related info included time since injury in years, explanation for injury (traumatic or non-traumatic), SCI lesion kind (full versus incomplete), and injury degree (paraplegia or tetraplegia). The modified Spinal Cord Injury Secondary Situations Scale (SCI-SCS) was used to evaluate the incidence of secondary well being situations (n = 15) within the earlier 12 months.19 Responses have been rated alongside a 4-point ordinal scale (0 = not skilled/insignificant downside to three=important/continual downside). Contributors have been requested to fee how they perceived the competence of their GP in managing SCI well being issues on a 5-point Likert scale score (1 = glorious to five = very dangerous).
The construction of the Worldwide Classification for Major Care 2 (ICPC-2) was used to design the RFE query. Contributors have been instructed to point the rationale/s for his or her final GP go to and supply particulars for every chosen response in a free textual content field. Elements included routine examination/annual check-up; an pressing illness downside; new medical downside; follow-up on current well being situation or check outcomes; diagnostic testing, screening, or vaccination; remedy provide (refills or prescription renewal); referral (specialist, hospital, or diagnostics); administrative work (kinds, certificates, and so on.); different cause, or I don’t keep in mind. Solely individuals who accomplished the RFE query have been included within the evaluation.
Based mostly on individuals’ enter within the free textual content field, well being issues have been coded in keeping with the ICPC-2 chapters, which included normal and unspecified, blood/blood forming organs, digestive, eye, ear, circulatory, musculoskeletal, neurological, psychological, respiratory, pores and skin, endocrine, metabolic and dietary, urological, being pregnant, little one bearing and household planning, feminine genital, male genital, and social issues. Solely chapters with observations are introduced within the tables. The ATC classification system was adopted to categorize reported medicines in keeping with their therapeutic group and indications; they have been then coded below the ICPC-2 chapters.20
Descriptive statistics have been employed to explain the individuals’ traits, the quantity and distribution of RFEs, and well being issues and have been reported as absolute and relative frequencies, means, and commonplace deviations. A t-test was used to match the variations within the imply variety of RFEs or well being issues per go to in keeping with first contact of care. Pearson’s chi-square check was used to measure the affiliation between RFEs or well being issues and the primary contact of care. It was additionally used to measure the affiliation between the perceived competence degree of GPs in managing SCI well being issues and first contact of care. The Mann–Whitney U-test was used to measure the affiliation between RFEs or well being issues and the perceived competence degree of GPs, respectively. All statistical findings have been in contrast at a significance degree of P < 0.05, and all statistical analyses have been carried out utilizing Stata® model 16.1 (Stata Corp LP, School Station, Texas, USA).
Of the 226 individuals (response fee 57%), 75% have been males, and the imply age was 57.2±13.6 (starting from 21 to 86) years. Most individuals (79%) have been German-speaking, and had a median of 14.1±3.2 years of formal schooling. The overwhelming majority had a private GP (96%), who they visited at a median of 4.1±4.5 visits per yr, and greater than half (53%) reported the GP as their first contact for SCI-specific care. Detailed info on the individuals’ traits is introduced in Desk 1.
Desk 1 Contributors’ Traits
Desk 2 presents the distribution of RFEs by well being issues. Of the 226 questionnaires accomplished for the examine, 210 individuals had visited a GP inside the final yr, nevertheless solely 202 (89%) individuals crammed out the RFE query, with a median of two.1 (SD±1.4) RFEs and a couple of.4 (±1.7) well being issues per GP go to, respectively.
Desk 2 Self-Reported Causes for GP Visits by Health Downside
Of the 202 individuals, 39% reported one RFE, 32% two RFEs, 17% three RFEs, and 12% documented greater than three RFEs per go to. Nearly half of those individuals (49%) visited GPs for medicines, 33% for pressing medical issues, 30% for follow-up, and 23% for routine or annual check-ups. Based on the ICPC2 chapter classification, looking for GP care was largely for normal/unspecified issues (65%, n = 131), 24% for urinary (n = 48), 21% for musculoskeletal (n = 42), and 15% for respiratory-related points (n = 30).
Urinary issues represented 37% of pressing medical issues. Musculoskeletal situations and respiratory tract infections represented 31% and 19% of latest issues, respectively. Equally, cardiovascular (20%), urinary (16%), musculoskeletal issues (15%), and pores and skin points (10%) have been among the many prime causes for follow-up visits. Of the respondents who visited a GP for referrals (n = 43), nearly 37% indicated it was for a specialist, 23% for physiotherapy and SCI specialised facilities,14% for hospital admissions and 26% didn’t specify.
Desk 3 presents the distribution of RFEs in GP visits in keeping with the primary contact of care. Out of the 202 individuals, 191 (95%) indicated their first contact of care (GP or specialist). Individuals with a GP as first contact (n = 109) had a decrease imply variety of RFEs (2.0±1.2) per go to, as in comparison with these within the specialist group (n = 82; 2.4±1.6), however this distinction was not statistically important.
Desk 3 Self-Reported Causes for Encounter by First Contact of Care
In each teams of individuals, the widespread RFEs have been for pressing medical issues (GP as first contact of care = 33% vs Specialist = 30%), follow-up (GP = 31% vs Specialist = 30%), and new medical issues (GP = 16% vs Specialist = 17%). Individuals within the specialist group (60%) have been statistically considerably extra prone to go to GPs for remedy than individuals within the GP group (42%).
Desk 4 supplies an summary of the well being issues managed by GPs in keeping with first contact of care. Individuals who had a GP as first contact demonstrated a decrease imply variety of well being issues (2.2±1.4) per go to, as in comparison with these within the specialist group (2.6±1.9), and this distinction was not statistically important at P < 0.05. At comparable frequencies, individuals in each teams visited GPs for urinary issues (GP as first contact of care = 20% vs Specialist = 22%), musculoskeletal-related issues (GP = 18% vs Specialist = 23%), and respiratory points (GP = 16% vs Specialist = 16%). Individuals within the specialist group have been twice as seemingly (16%) to go to GPs for circulatory situations than these within the GP group (7%). We discovered no statistically important affiliation between any of the well being issues and first contact of care.
Desk 4 Health Issues Managed by GPs by First Contact of Care
In response to how individuals usually rated their GP’s competence in managing SCI well being issues, 23% reported it as “excellent”, 44% as “good”, 25% as “common”, and eight% as “dangerous” to “very dangerous.” The connection between RFEs and the perceived competence of GPs is introduced in Determine 1. Nearly all of the individuals who visited a GP for routine examination/annual check-up (favorable rankings = 70%); or follow-up (71%); regarded the competence of their GP in managing SCI well being issues as “good” to “excellent.” Nonetheless, about 33% and 14% of individuals who visited GPs for referrals rated their competence as “common” and “dangerous to very dangerous”, respectively. We discovered no statistically important relationship between RFEs and the GPs’ competence rankings.
Determine 1 Perceived competence of GPs in managing SCI well being issues by causes for encounter. aObserve-up go to for current medical downside, check outcomes, and so on. bDiagnostic, screening, and vaccination. cRemedy refills, prescription renewal, and so on. dReferrals to specialist, hospital, diagnostic, and so on. eFinishing kinds or offering certificates, and so on. fMedical recommendation or house visits, and so on. 100% is the full variety of individuals in every particular class responding to the competence degree. Mann–Whitney-U check was used to measure the numerous affiliation between the rationale for the encounter and the perceived competence of GPs, and no relation was discovered to be statistically important at P < 0.05.
Grouped by the perceived competence of GPs in managing SCI well being issues, Determine 2 exhibits the highest 7 well being issues indicated by individuals for visiting GPs. Nearly all of the individuals who visited a GP for circulatory (favorable rankings = 75%), respiratory (74%), or pores and skin issues (72%) rated their competence between “good” and “excellent.” Nearly half of the individuals who visited a GP for musculoskeletal (49%) or digestive issues (45%) rated their competence between “common” and “dangerous to very dangerous.”
Determine 2 Perceived competence of GPs in managing SCI well being issues by prime 7 well being issues. Health issues in keeping with chapters of the ICPC-2. 100% is the full variety of individuals in every particular class responding to the competence degree. Mann–Whitney U-test was used to measure the numerous affiliation between well being downside and the perceived competence of GPs, and no relation was discovered to be statistically important at P < 0.05.
The connection between GPs’ perceived competence in managing SCI well being issues and first contact of care is introduced in Determine 3. In comparison with a specialist, individuals who had a GP as first contact of care have been statistically considerably extra prone to fee the GP’s competence as “excellent” (GP as first contact of care = 35% vs Specialist = 10%) and fewer prone to fee it as “common” (GP = 18% vs Specialist = 35%) or “dangerous to very dangerous” (GP = 3% vs Specialist = 13%).
Determine 3 Perceived competence of GPs in managing SCI well being issues by first contact of care. 100% is the full variety of individuals for every competence degree. Pearson’s chi-square check was used to measure the numerous affiliation between the perceived competence degree of GPs in managing SCI well being issues and the primary contact of care; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
This examine examined the explanations individuals with SCI go to GPs, the hyperlink between the RFEs and the perceived competence of GPs in managing SCI well being issues, and the primary contact of care. On this examine, nearly half of the individuals visited a GP for remedy. This discovering is no surprise, as individuals with SCI are at heightened threat of experiencing important secondary well being issues, reminiscent of spasticity, continual ache, bowel and bladder issues, urinary tract infections, heart problems, and diabetes, that are generally managed with pharmacotherapy.21,22 In view of the primary contact of care, individuals whose first contact was a specialist have been prone to go to a GP for remedy provide extra typically than these within the GP group. Apparently, this group tends to pick suppliers and companies in keeping with their well being conditions, nevertheless each SCI specialists and GPs are wanted collectively to meet their wants. Furthermore, visiting GPs for remedy is extra handy, given the proximity of GP practices and the far distance to specialists and SCI facilities. Moreover, GPs in Switzerland not solely prescribe medicines however are allowed to promote them on to sufferers by means of their in-practice pharmacies.23 This “self-dispensing” follow is cantonal dependent, licensed in German-speaking cantons, and disapproved within the French-speaking areas. At present, 14 of 26 cantons allow physicians to promote medicines freely and one other three supply shelling out licenses below particular situations.23
According to earlier analysis on the identical inhabitants, most visits to a GP have been for acute issues.11 Whether or not as pressing or new medical downside, urinary tract infections, musculoskeletal ache, spasticity, and respiratory tract infections represented the highest well being issues to go to a GP in individuals whose first contact of care was a GP or specialist. Equally, no important variations in frequency have been discovered between the 2 teams when visiting a GP for follow-up care. Certainly, each teams reported visits for current continual situations, reminiscent of hypertension, diabetes, or follow-up on blood check outcomes or for suture elimination or dressing change. These findings replicate the normal scope of follow of GPs in Switzerland; they deal with a variety of sicknesses and supply a broad set of companies, together with prognosis and follow-up for continual situations.24 As well as, GPs are simply accessible, as their practices lied inside 25 minutes of auto driving distance to nearly 86% of the examine individuals.14
Akin to Van Lavatory et al25, our examine exhibits that 23% of the individuals visited a GP for routine/annual check-ups, in distinction to 50% who reported receiving their check-up at one of many 4 specialised SCI facilities.26 This discovering could also be interpreted by the complexity of SCI and the necessity for greater experience and information to handle their secondary well being situations.25,27 Because of this, the specialised facilities in Switzerland routinely invite all individuals with SCI for annual management visits, at which they obtain multidisciplinary complete care in keeping with accepted scientific pointers for varied physique programs, for which GPs might not have the wanted abilities and information.11,27
Most individuals rated the competence of their GP favorably in relation to SCI-specific care. Nonetheless, the frequency of documented RFEs for secondary well being situations remained low, regardless of the comparatively greater SCI-SCS complete imply rating (14.4±7.0), which is against beforehand reported.14 These findings probably recommend response bias. Because the individuals have been a part of an interventional examine,17 prior information in regards to the examine might have resulted in additional favorable rankings and fewer pure responses. As well as, individuals have been recruited based mostly on their proximity to GPs collaborating within the interventional examine;17 it could be doable that, due to the familiarity of individuals with their GP, they’d fears of getting their responses linked to their knowledge. Moreover, the outcomes on RFEs represented the final episode of care. Subsequently, earlier visits to GPs for different causes or totally different well being issues, together with secondary situations, weren’t captured on this examine and couldn’t be excluded. Alternatively, given the chronicity of sure secondary situations, eg, ache and sexual dysfunction, individuals with SCI might not essentially search GP care every time experiencing these situations. Nonetheless, former proof on not receiving SCI-specific care in the identical inhabitants was documented by Gemperli et al, and was linked to the unavailability of the service on the time of want or within the area, the lack of know-how of whom to contact when medical care was wanted, and the shortage of SCI experience amongst health-care suppliers.11 Nonetheless, it’s inconceivable to anticipate all GPs to be competent in managing secondary well being situations or skilled on this subject.9 As a substitute, making a connection between GPs in rural communities and specialised facilities is much extra possible and attainable. Such an method would allow GPs to fulfill their info wants on whom to contact and the place to entry information in regards to the administration of SCI.6,28 As well as, selling digital instruments for info change amongst suppliers is beneficial to optimize interprofessional collaboration alongside the affected person pathway and for built-in care.29
The present examine established a optimistic hyperlink between the selection of first contact and the perceived competence of GPs within the area of SCI-specific care. This probably displays extra complicated medical wants within the specialist group and better care expectations, resulting in decrease rankings. Former accounts of frustration amongst individuals with SCI have been documented by Stillman et al, and have been attributed to the unfamiliarity of major care physicians with the influence of SCI on their general lives and their poor understanding of medical points related to incapacity.30 As well as, the continued physician–affected person relationship and optimistic private interactions have probably acted as a buffer in opposition to unfavorable rankings of technical experience within the GP group.10
Regardless of the excessive prevalence of sexual dysfunction in individuals with SCI,14,21 solely two individuals visited a GP for reproductive well being points. Nonetheless, this consequence is no surprise, as problems with sexual well being are among the many least addressed issues on the whole and in major take care of individuals with SCI, and is considered as a delicate subject to handle.10,21 Equally, visiting a GP for psychological or social points was nearly non-existent among the many individuals, regardless of the upper prevalence of despair on this group than within the normal inhabitants.31–33 This discovering has already been highlighted beforehand,10,25 through which the bulk cited unmet psychosocial care wants by GPs or specialists.10
Limitations and Strengths
The outcomes of this examine must be interpreted in gentle of its limitations. As famous, the examine pattern will not be a random pattern of all individuals with SCI, and the outcomes can’t be generalized to this inhabitants. Though a response fee of 57% is taken into account acceptable, non-response bias owing to variations within the particular person traits between survey respondents and non-respondents can’t be excluded. As well as, individuals have been requested to retrospectively report their GP visits, which can have launched recall bias. This survey came about throughout the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Therefore, it’s important to account for potential variations in medical contacts and individuals’ reviews of RFEs owing to the bodily distancing and lowered journey and transportation for this susceptible inhabitants. Within the current examine, nearly 22% of all RFEs have been left with out additional particulars, which resulted in coding these RFEs below “unspecified.” Moreover, the RFEs have been solely based mostly on the individuals’ accounts. Subsequently, additional analysis is desired to search out similarities between how individuals with SCI categorical their calls for for care and the precise diagnoses made by their GP.34 This examine didn’t account for doable variations in RFEs, well being issues or perceived competence of GPs throughout individuals’ traits, however this might be thought-about in future analysis. Regardless of these limitations, this examine represents a vital first step towards a greater understanding of RFEs in a scientific and person-centered method and of the GPs’ competence in managing SCI well being issues from the angle of individuals with SCI.
No matter first contact of care, individuals with SCI residing in rural communities go to GPs for medicines, pressing points, and follow-up care, and extra typically for well being issues reminiscent of urinary tract infections, musculoskeletal ache, spasticity, and respiratory tract infections. The present care mannequin for SCI, which unilaterally calls for specialised rehabilitation care, appears unrealistic, and prevents sufficient care for a lot of sufferers. Strengthening collaboration and information switch between GPs in rural communities and specialised facilities is beneficial. Selling such a connection probably aids GPs in assembly their info wants for managing secondary well being situations and enhancing the standard of SCI take care of this inhabitants.
SCI, spinal cord injury; GP, normal practitioner; RFE, causes for encounter; SwiSCI, Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Cohort Examine; SCI-SCS, Spinal Cord Injury Secondary Situations Scale; ICPC-2, Worldwide Classification of Major Care, 2nd version.
Information Sharing Assertion
Owing to our dedication to SwiSCI examine individuals and their privateness, datasets generated throughout the present examine haven’t been made publicly obtainable however may be supplied by the SwiSCI Examine Centre upon cheap request ([email protected]).
Ethics Approval and Consent to Take part
This examine is roofed by the moral approval awarded by Ethikkommission Nordwest-und Zentralschweiz (EKNZ, Mission-ID: 2019-01527, accredited in September 2019) to the SCI-Co examine with the challenge title “Shared accountability between normal practitioners and extremely specialised hospitals in complicated continual situations: the case of spinal cord injury in a nationwide intervention examine”. We affirm that this examine complied with the moral pointers of the Helsinki Declaration and that every one relevant institutional and governmental rules regarding the moral use of human volunteers have been adopted throughout the course of this analysis. All examine individuals have signed a doc to supply their written knowledgeable consent.
We thank the SwiSCI Steering Committee with its members Xavier Jordan, Fabienne Reynard (Clinique Romande de Réadaptation, Sion); Michael Baumberger, Luca Jelmoni (Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil); Armin Curt, Martin Schubert (Balgrist College Hospital, Zürich); Margret Hund-Georgiadis, NN (REHAB Basel, Basel); Laurent Prince (Swiss Paraplegic Affiliation, Nottwil); Heidi Hanselmann (Swiss Paraplegic Basis, Nottwil); Daniel Joggi (Consultant of individuals with SCI); Mirjana Bosnjakovic (Parahelp, Nottwil); Mirjam Brach, Gerold Stucki (Swiss Paraplegic Analysis, Nottwil); Armin Gemperli (SwiSCI Coordination Group at Swiss Paraplegic Analysis, Nottwil).
All authors made a big contribution to the work reported, whether or not that’s within the conception, examine design, execution, acquisition of knowledge, evaluation and interpretation, or in all these areas; took half in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave ultimate approval of the model to be printed; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and comply with be accountable for all features of the work.
Three of the authors (DT, AS, and AG) are salaried workers of organizations financially supported by the Swiss Paraplegic Basis. The funding get together had no function within the examine design, assortment, evaluation, interpretation of knowledge, or writing of the manuscript.
1. World Health Group (WHO). Spinal cord injury; 2013. Out there from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/element/spinal-cord-injury. Accessed September 7, 2022.
2. European Spinal Cord Injury Federation. ESCIF Coverage Assertion on the therapy, rehabilitation and life-long care of individuals with spinal cord accidents (SCI). Out there from: http://www.escif.org/ESCIFpolicy_statement.htm. Accessed September 7, 2022.
3. McColl MA, Aiken A, McColl A, et al. Major care of individuals with spinal cord injury: scoping evaluate. Can Fam Doctor. 2012;58(11):1207–e1635.
4. Beatty PW, Hagglund KJ, Neri MT, et al. Entry to well being care companies amongst individuals with continual or disabling situations: patterns and predictors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84(10):1417–1425.
5. Harrington AL, Hirsch MA, Hammond FM, et al. Evaluation of major care companies and perceived obstacles to care in individuals with disabilities. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88(10):852–863.
6. Cox RJ, Amsters DI, Pershouse KJ. The necessity for a multidisciplinary outreach service for individuals with spinal cord injury residing in the neighborhood. Clin Rehabil. 2001;15(6):600–606.
7. LaVela SL, Smith B, Weaver FM, et al. Geographical proximity and well being care utilization in veterans with SCI&D within the USA. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59(11):2387–2399.
8. Ronca E, Brunkert T, Koch HG, et al. Residential location of individuals with continual spinal cord injury: the significance of native well being care infrastructure. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):657.
9. Amsters D, Schuurs S, Kendall M, et al. Normal follow visits by individuals with traumatic spinal cord injury: a Queensland longitudinal examine. Aust J Prim Health. 2014;20(2):167–173.
10. Donnelly C, McColl MA, Charlifue S, et al. Utilization, entry and satisfaction with major care amongst individuals with spinal cord accidents: a comparability of three international locations. Spinal Wire. 2007;45(1):25–36. doi:10.1038/sj.sc.3101933
11. Gemperli A, Ronca E, Scheel-Sailer A, et al. Health care utilization in individuals with spinal cord injury: half 1-outpatient companies. Spinal Wire. 2017;55(9):823–827. doi:10.1038/sc.2017.44
12. Ronca E, Scheel-Sailer A, Koch HG, et al. Satisfaction with entry and high quality of healthcare companies for individuals with spinal cord injury residing in the neighborhood. J Spinal Wire Med. 2020;43(1):111–121. doi:10.1080/10790268.2018.1486623
13. Rosano A, Loha CA, Falvo R, et al. The connection between avoidable hospitalization and accessibility to major care: a scientific evaluate. Eur J Public Health. 2013;23(3):356–360.
14. Touhami D, Brach M, Essig S, et al. First contact of take care of individuals with spinal cord injury: a normal practitioner or a spinal cord injury specialist? BMC Fam Pract. 2021;22(1):195.
15. Ronca E, Scheel-Sailer A, Koch HG, et al. Health care utilization in individuals with spinal cord injury: half 2-determinants, geographic variation and comparability with the final inhabitants. Spinal Wire. 2017;55(9):828–833.
16. Berchtold P, Peytremann-Bridevaux I. Built-in care organizations in Switzerland. Int J Integr Care. 2011;11 Spec Ed(Particular tenth Anniversary Version):e010.
17. Tomaschek R, Touhami D, Essig S, et al. Shared accountability between normal practitioners and extremely specialised physicians in continual spinal cord injury: examine protocol for a nationwide pragmatic nonrandomized interventional examine. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2021;24:100873.
18. Gross-Hemmi MH, Gemperli A, Fekete C, et al. Methodology and examine inhabitants of the second Swiss nationwide group survey of functioning after spinal cord injury. Spinal Wire. 2021;59(4):363–372.
19. Spinal Cord Injury Analysis Proof. Spinal Cord Injury Secondary Situations Scale (SCI-SCS); 2020. Out there from: https://scireproject.com/outcome-measures/outcome-measure-tool/spinal-cord-injury-secondary-conditions-scale-sci-scs/#1467983894080-2c29ca8d-88af. Accessed September 17, 2021.
20. WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Tips for ATC classification and DDD project 2021. Oslo, Norway; 2020. Out there from: https://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index_and_guidelines/pointers/. Accessed August 23, 2021.
21. Brinkhof MW, Al-Khodairy A, Eriks-Hoogland I, et al. Health situations in individuals with spinal cord injury: modern proof from a population-based group survey in Switzerland. J Rehabil Med. 2016;48(2):197–209.
22. Böthig R, Domurath B, Kutzenberger J, et al. The actual each day want for incontinence aids and home equipment in sufferers with neurogenic bladder dysfunction in a group setting in Germany. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2020;13:217.
23. De Pietro C, Camenzind P, Sturny I, et al. Switzerland: well being System Assessment. Health Syst Transit. 2015;17(4):1–288.
24. Cartier T, Cornuz J. Switzerland. In: Kringos DS, Hutchinson A, editors. Constructing Major Care in a Altering Europe: Case Research. Copenhagen (Denmark): European Observatory on Health Techniques and Insurance policies; Vol. 40, 2015
25. van Lavatory MA, Submit MW, Bloemen JH, et al. Care wants of individuals with long-term spinal cord injury residing at house within the Netherlands. Spinal Wire. 2010;48(5):423–428.
26. Ronca E, Scheel-Sailer A, Eriks-Hoogland I, et al. Elements influencing specialised well being care utilization by people with spinal cord injury: a cross-sectional survey. Spinal Wire. 2021;59(4):381–388.
27. Spreyermann R, Lüthi H, Michel F, et al. Lengthy-term follow-up of sufferers with spinal cord injury with a brand new ICF-based instrument. Spinal Wire. 2011;49(2):230–235.
28. Mann L, Middleton JW, Leong G. Becoming incapacity into follow–concentrate on spinal cord injury. Aust Fam Doctor. 2007;36(12):1039–1042.
29. Bundesamt für Gesundheit. Interprofessionelle Zusammenarbeit in der ambulanten Versorgung stärken—Coverage Transient. Bern; 2021. Out there from: https://www.bag.admin.ch/dam/bag/de/dokumente/berufe-gesundheitswesen/Interprofessionalitaet/policy-briefs/ambulante-versorgung.pdf.obtain.pdf/1_DE_Ambulantepercent20Versorgung.docx.pdf. Accessed March 01, 2022.
30. Stillman MD, Frost KL, Smalley C, et al. Health care utilization and obstacles skilled by people with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(6):1114–1126.
31. Dryden DM, Rowe BH, Might LA, et al. Utilization of well being companies following spinal cord injury: a 6-year follow-up examine. Spinal Wire. 2004;42(9):513–525.
32. Kroll T, Neri MT, Ho P-S. Secondary situations in spinal cord injury: outcomes from a potential survey. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29(15):1229–1237.
33. Kalpakjian CZ, Albright KJ. An examination of despair by means of the lens of spinal cord injury: comparative prevalence charges and severity in ladies and men. Womens Health Points. 2006;16(6):380–388.
34. Chmiel C, Bhend H, Senn O, et al. The FIRE challenge: a milestone for analysis in major care in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly. 2011;140:w13142.