Introduction
Methods
Design of the study
The setting
Type of participants
Materials involved
Type of analysis
Raw score calculation
Subscale | Step 1 | Possible range (raw) | Step 2 | Possible range (adjusted) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Psychological | Add items 1 to 5 | 5 to 30 | Divide score by 5 | 1 to 6 |
Self Care | Add items 6 to 9 | 4 to 24 | Divide score by 4 | 1 to 6 |
Mobility | Add items 10 to 14 | 5 to 30 | Divide score by 5 | 1 to 6 |
Participation | Add items 15 to 19 | 5 to 30 | Divide score by 5 | 1 to 6 |
Relationships | Add items 20 to 23 | 4 to 24 | Divide score by 4 | 1 to 6 |
Results
Causation and medical profile of the sample
Demographic | Representation | ||
---|---|---|---|
Age
|
Range 19 – 82 years
| ||
Mean 49 years
| |||
Gender
|
Total sample
|
Male 71%
|
Female 29%
|
Landmine/UXO
|
Male 85%
|
Female 15%
| |
Non-UXO
|
Male 54%
|
Female 46%
| |
Relationships
|
Married
|
78%
| |
Defacto
|
2%
| ||
Separated
|
10%
| ||
Never Married
|
10%
| ||
Educational Status
|
No formal education
|
36%
| |
Primary level
|
29%
| ||
Secondary level
|
29%
| ||
Tertiary level
|
6%
| ||
Ethnicity
|
Lao Lung
|
71%
| |
Lao Theung
|
10%
| ||
Lao Sung
|
10%
| ||
Other
|
9%
| ||
Religion
|
Buddhist
|
76%
| |
Christian
|
2%
| ||
Worship Spiritual Ghosts
|
22%
| ||
% Head of Household total sample
|
60%
| ||
Average number of children per household
|
2
| ||
Average number of adults per household
|
3
|
Cause of loss of mobility total sample
|
Male
|
+Medical 14%
|
Trauma (non-UXO) 22%
|
Trauma (UXO) 64%
|
Female
|
Medical 60%
|
Trauma (non-UXO) 13%
|
Trauma (UXO) 27%
| |
Injury Cause in landmine/UXO group
|
Antipersonnel landmine
|
34%
| ||
UXO
|
32%
| |||
Unknown
|
17%
| |||
Upper limb injury in addition lower limb injury
|
14% males, 7% females
| |||
Activity at time of injury in Landmine/UXO sample
|
Walking
|
17%
| ||
Farming/Herding
|
12%
| |||
Travelling
|
11%
| |||
Collecting firewood
|
9%
| |||
Burning rubbish
|
6%
| |||
Forestry
|
6%
| |||
Scrap metal collection
|
6%
| |||
Fishing/hunting
|
3%
| |||
Demining
|
3%
| |||
Other/no response
|
27%
| |||
Use of mobility equipment
|
Prostheses
|
Landmine/UXO 74%
|
Non-UXO 50%
| |
Wheelchair
|
Landmine/UXO 0%
|
Non-UXO 16%
| ||
Crutches
|
Landmine/UXO 21%
|
Non-UXO 15%
| ||
None
|
Landmine/UXO 5%
|
Non-UXO 19%
| ||
Complained of anxiety/depression since injury or illness
|
Landmine/UXO
|
Yes 83%
|
No 17%
| |
Non-UXO
|
Yes 79%
|
No 21%
| ||
Complained of chronic pain since injury or illness
|
Landmine/UXO
|
Yes 63%
|
No 37%
| |
Non-UXO
|
Yes 46%
|
No 54%
| ||
Had access to medical care following accident/illness
|
Landmine/UXO
|
Yes 78%
|
No 22%
| |
Non-UXO
|
Yes 58%
|
No 42%
|
Results of perceived impact of injury between groups ( Additional file1: Annex 1)
Results of perceived impact of injury between UXO and Non-UXO victims ( Additional file1: Annex 2)
Comparison of individual PIPP items ( Additional file1: Annex 3)
The Spearman’s Correlation ( Additional file1: Annex 4)
-
Spearman’s confirms results from Mann Whitney that there is no correlation between receipt of physical therapy/rehabilitation and perceived quality of life (PIPP scores)
-
Being currently employed is negatively correlated with year of injury, so the more recent the injury the less likely to be currently employed, this is significant at the .01 level
-
The more recent the injury the higher the perceived distress level in the psychology raw score.
-
The same goes for participation and relationship scores, the more recent the injury the higher the perceived impact.