How Can Policymakers be Encouraged to Support People With Spinal Cord Injury—Scoping Review

Abstract

Study Design: Scoping review. Objective: Regarding that inappropriate medical care approaches, absence of rehabilitation services, and existing barriers in physical, social, and policy environments lead to poor outcomes in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) and provision for appropriate interventions and care must be created by health policymakers, we conducted this scoping review to investigate how policymakers can be persuaded to set new plans for individuals with SCI. Methods: This review was performed according to Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. PubMed was searched in February2019 without language limitation. We looked for other potential gray literature sources and some professional websites. References sections of selected articles were also scanned for other relevant literature. Results: We included literature that met inclusion criteria to answer our research question. The literature was divided into 3 categories. The first category included economic impact of SCI. The second category included the role of research and developing research strategy. The third category included effective interaction and communication with policymakers. Conclusion: It is essential to consider multiple factors for influencing policymakers’ decisions. These factors include knowing how to communicate with policymakers and presenting constructive ideas, providing a source of valid, reliable, and consistent data, considering the role of patients’ advocacy groups and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and presentation of the importance of early intervention in reducing healthcare system costs. Ultimately, the goal is to have a comprehensive and flexible plan for influencing policymakers.

“I am not the same as before”: a mixed-methods study on depression in people with spinal injury in Qatar

“…Depression is prevalent among people with spinal injury and is associated with lower levels of social and spiritual support, but not sociodemographic factors or injury cause or site. Many of the poor outcomes associated with spinal injury arise from insufficient medical care and rehabilitation services, coupled with obstacles in physical, social, and policy environments ( 63 ). In addition to the direct impact of spinal injury on affective disorders, policy decisions that impact on care and support for people with spinal injury may also adversely affect neurological recovery, resulting in further increased levels of depression as well as other personal and economic burdens for both individuals and the health system ( 63 ).…”

“…Many of the poor outcomes associated with spinal injury arise from insufficient medical care and rehabilitation services, coupled with obstacles in physical, social, and policy environments ( 63 ). In addition to the direct impact of spinal injury on affective disorders, policy decisions that impact on care and support for people with spinal injury may also adversely affect neurological recovery, resulting in further increased levels of depression as well as other personal and economic burdens for both individuals and the health system ( 63 ). Delivering comprehensive care that includes depression diagnosis and treatment during acute and post-acute phases can mitigate the likelihood of depression and enhance overall quality of life by maximizing functional capabilities, promoting independence, ensuring overall wellbeing, and facilitating community integration to enable people with spinal injury to live full and meaningful lives ( 64 ).…”

“…At a minimum, spinal injury care programs should include rehabilitation psychologists to facilitate the early detection of depression in people with spinal injury and timely referral to treatment ( 64 ). Beyond this, access to valid, reliable, and consistent data is required for policy makers to develop evidence-based actions, and a spinal injury registry could provide access to data to support evidence-based practice to optimize continuity of care, rehabilitation services, and social support for people with spinal injury ( 63 ).…”