Psychological distress among survivors of burn injury: The role of outcome expectations and perceptions of importance

School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 27599-7330.
Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation (Impact Factor: 2.42). 01/1994; 15(5):421-7.
Source: PubMed


This study examined factors associated with psychologic distress among survivors of burn injury. The study tested hypotheses derived from Scheier and Carver's model of behavioral self-regulation and focused on two primary predictor variables: expectations concerning rehabilitative outcomes and the importance attached to those outcomes. The study used a cross-sectional research design. Two hundred sixteen people who had sustained major or moderate thermal burn injuries within 2 years of study entry served as subjects. Data were collected via mailed questionnaire and chart review. Consistent with study hypotheses, we found that participants who had low expectations for further improvement but who attached high importance to the need for improvement exhibited the most psychologic distress. Study findings lend support to Scheier and Carver's model and suggest that application of this model within the context of burn rehabilitation may increase our understanding of the rehabilitation process. Directions for future theory-based research are discussed.

21 Reads
  • Source
    • "Each year more than 2 million people sustain burns in United States [1]. In Korea, it accounted for 15,000 inpatients and more than 600 deaths in 2003 [2]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many burn patients experience psychosocial problems such as personality change, post-traumatic stress disorder, family trouble, and financial burden. The purpose of this study was to identify the risk factors of these psychosocial problems that prevented burn patients from developing appropriate adjustments after burn. Six hundred eighty-six adult burn inpatients were interviewed. Most of them suffered from burns less than 10% of total body surface area. They were asked to fill in a questionnaire for this study, which was a psychosocial problem checklist of 17 items. Descriptive analysis, factor analysis, Chi-square test, and multiple logistic regression analysis were used to analyze the results. Lack of family support and living expense burden were the two significant risk factors for psychosocial problems including, burn treatment problems, rehabilitation problems, and welfare information problems on both acute and chronic burn patients. Medical expense burden was the risk factor among chronic burn patients. These findings suggested that active interventions by the burn team including mental health professionals (psychologist, psychiatrist or social worker) might reduce psychosocial problems of burn patients and encourage social rehabilitation.
    Burns 03/2008; 34(1):24-31. DOI:10.1016/j.burns.2007.03.012 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • Source

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this study, an immunohistochemical stain for cyclin was used to quantitate proliferating elements in hair follicles at the edge of and within thermal burn areas. Biopsy specimens from thermal injury in the guinea pig (day 1 through day 28) were sectioned and stained with MIB-1 antibody, which recognizes cyclin, a protein expressed during epithelial cell proliferation. At the edge of the burn, 89 +/- 6.1 (SD) cells per medium power field (x 10, mpf) were MIB-1-positive on days 1 through 16. On day 17, the number of positive cells increased, reaching peak values on days 20 to 28 (271 +/- 12.7 cells/mpf). Within the burn, minimal staining was observed from day 1 to day 15 (12.7 +/- 1.6 cells/mpf). Thereafter the number of MIB-1-positive cells increased and plateaued with an average of 96.4 +/- 9.0 cells/mpf on days 20 through 28. In conclusion, immunohistochemical staining of dermal biopsy specimens with MIB-1 antibody may provide a quantitative method for the evaluation of tissue damage and healing after thermal injury.
    Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation 07/1997; 18(4):292-8. DOI:10.1097/00004630-199707000-00003 · 2.42 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications