The Importance Of Psychological Resources To Individuals’ Adjustment To Mobility Disability

Abstract

Although disability is widely acknowledged to involve physical, social and psychological consequences, few studies have studied the potential of psychological resources to improve adjustment to disability outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the importance of psychological resources on adjustment to disability for mobility impaired individuals. Psychological resources were evaluated using General self-efficacy scale, MOS Social Support Survey and Brief-COPE questionnaire (measuring adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies). Adjustment of Disability scale – Revised was also used in the study. The study sample consisted 321 mobility impaired individuals (132 men and 189 women), aged between 18 and 80. Participants possessing greater psychological resources reported higher scores of adjustment to disability compared to participants with fewer resources. Regression analysis identified general self-efficacy, perceived social support and maladaptive coping strategies as main significant predictors of adjustment to disability. General self-efficacy, perceived social support and coping strategies were significantly related to individual’s adjustment to disability and seem to be stronger predictors of adjustment than sociodemographic or disability-related variables. Empowering of psychological resources should be an important aspect of rehabilitation process for people with mobility disabilities.

Keywords: Adjustment to disabilityself-efficacysocial supportcoping strategies

Introduction

Previous studies have indicated that physical disability or severe mobility impairment involves physical, social and psychological consequences (Petter, Müller, Cieza, & Ghey, 2012). These consequences can be enormous and affect every aspect of a person’s life. People who have mobility impairment, especially if it is severe, may be dependent on others for assistance with tasks of daily living such as bathing, toileting, dressing, eating, community access, and recreational activities (Glass, 1999). They also face the increased risk of major depression, anxiety disorder, substance abuse and suicide compared with the general population (Avey, Luthans, Smith & Palmer, 2010; Kennedy & Rogers, 2000). In addition, people with mobility disability report not only poorer physical but also mental health, lower quality of life compared to non-disabled people (Lidal, Veenstra, Hjeltnes & Biering-Sørensen, 2008; Salaffi et al. 2009). These indicators suggest that the person with mobility impairment or disability has an increased risk of adjustment difficulties and their coping strengths might be challenged, particularly in the early stages following disability.

Adjustment to disability can be described as “evolving, dynamic, general process through which the individual gradually approaches an optimal state of person-environment congruence” (Livneh & Antonak, 1997, p. 18). During this process, persons with mobility disabilities may grow positively over time as they develop adaptive beliefs and experience shifts in their values. Some of these positive aspects may take time to be realized or appreciated (Elliott, Kurylo & Rivera, 2002).

The extent of adjustment to disability can be explained by the degree that a person (a) recognizes values other than those which are in the direct conflict with his or her disability, (b) deemphasizes those aspects of physical appearance and ability that contradicts his or her disability, (c) does not extend his or her disability beyond actual physical impairment to other aspects of functioning self, (d) does not compare himself or herself to other in the areas of physical limitations but instead emphasizes his or her own assets and abilities (Dembo, Leviton & Wright, 1956; Li & Moore, 1998).

Problem Statement

Although disability is widely acknowledged to involve physical, social and psychological consequences, few studies have studied the potential of psychosocial resources to improve adjustment to disability process. Psychological resources can be described as inner health protecting and promoting the potential of a person, who means to deal with difficult and stressful situations. Psychological resources may include person’s skills, abilities, knowledge, talents, experiences, strengths or behavioral patterns (Hobfoll, 2002; Rowe, 1996).

Strengthening psychological resources is one of the most important aims in rehabilitation to support successful adjustment to mobility disability. In terms of the impact of the individual’s adjustment, psychological resources, such as self-efficacy, perceived social support and coping strategies were found to be very important factors related with health, psychological well-being and quality of life in mobility impaired people (Benyon, Hill, Zadurian & Mallen, 2010; Motl, McAuley, Snook & Gliottoni, 2009; Hampton, 2004; Alčiauskaitė & Šinkariova, 2013).

General self-efficacy is probably one of the most analyzed psychological resources among people with mobility disabilities. Self-efficacy measures the strength of a person’s expectation about performing a task successfully in the future and has been shown to be a mediator of health outcomes (Bandura, 2004). It is believed to guard against the negative impact of pain, fatigue and depression (Cameron, Kool, Estévez-López, López-Chicheri & Geenen, 2018; Craig, Tran & Siddall, 2013). Higher self-efficacy is consistently related to higher life satisfaction, greater psychological well-being, better mental health and higher life satisfaction in mobility impaired individuals (Cijsouw et al., 2017; Van Leeuwen, Kraaijeveld, Lindeman & Post, 2012).

Perceived social support has also been identified as a significant psychological resource that can buffer the negative effects of health conditions on psychological functioning. Previous research demonstrates consistent negative associations between measures of social support and depression, as well as positive associations between measures of social support and psychological health in people with spinal cord injury or arthritis (Müller, Peter, Cieza & Geyh, 2012; Jensen, Smith, Bombardier, Yorkston, Miró & Molton, 2014). Lack of social support is related to increased loneliness, physical pain and fatigue, lower physical health outcomes (Kool & Geenen, 2012; Buenaver, Edwards & Haythornthwaite, 2007), so it is very important that persons with disabilities get enough support from their family and friends.

Meanwhile, coping has assumed a dominant role in the extant literature on psychosocial adaptation to physical disability or life-threatening diseases. The role of coping has been typically viewed either as a stable, trait-like or trans-situational personality attribute to reduce anxiety or stress, or a situationally determined process, state or strategy invoked to alleviate context-triggered stress (Livneh & Wilson, 2003). This resource may significantly amplify or diminish the effects of stressful events as different types of coping strategies can have protective or harmful effects on individuals’ health and well-being. Previous research has found that adaptive coping strategies are associated with better emotional well-being and quality of life (Englbrecht, Kruckow, Araujo, Rech & Schett, 2013), decreased pain and depressive symptoms (Ramírez-Maestre & Esteve, 2014) and better psychosocial adjustment to disability (Livneh & Martz, 2014).

However, the existing studies on adjustment to disabilities are limited in several ways. First, previous research has focused on only a few variables related to adjustment to disability. Some psychological resources have been frequently analyzed but not together with disability related variables. Even among people with the same disability, their condition and functional limitation can vary dramatically. Disability related characteristics, such as severity of disability, nature of disability (congenital or acquired) and visibility of disability, and their associations with person’s adjustment have rarely been explored (Harrison, Falvo, Weiss & Holland, 2017; Malcarne, Hansdottir, McKinney, Upchurch & Greenbergs, 2007). Also, mostly the negative aspects of disability (e. g. depression, anxiety, perceived distress, etc.) have been analyzed in previous studies, instead of focusing on person’s inner strengths and positive outcomes of mobility disability (Alčiauskaitė & Šinkariova, 2018; Weitzner et al., 2011).

There remain a number of important unanswered questions with respect to self-efficacy, perceived social support and coping strategies. As we have mentioned above, most of the resources are very complex and it still remains unclear, which aspects are related to a person’s adjustment to disability. For example, there are many coping strategies that might be effective in dealing with psychological distress, but are they all useful while a person is trying to adapt to his or her disability? Moreover, previous research provides controversial findings and limited research has yet to directly compare the relative importance of different types of social support to the psychological functioning of persons with mobility disabilities.

Research Questions

Which psychological resources are significant predictors of adjustment to disability among individuals with mobility disabilities?

Are psychological resources stronger predictors of adjustment to disability than sociodemographic and disability related variables?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to investigate the importance of psychological resources on adjustment to disability among individuals with mobility disabilities.

Research Methods

Participants

In total 516 persons having mobility disability were invited to participate in this study. Potential participants were reached while collaborating with various Lithuanian associations and organizations for people with disability. The data of the study came from self-administered questionnaires. Respondents were personally asked to fill in the questionnaires, after they were informed about the purpose and procedure of the study.

To be included in the study, a participant had to match three criteria: (1) being older than 18; (2) having a mobility disability (impairment); (3) willing to participate in the study. The final study sample comprised 321 participants with mobility disabilities.

Sociodemographic variables associated with this sample included the following sociodemographic characteristics: (a) age range: 18 to 80 years (M = 39.64, SD = 15.11 years), (b) gender: women (59.1%), men (40.9%), (c) marital status: single (43%), married or living with a partner (37.8%), divorced (13.9%) or widowed (5.3%) (d) education: secondary education (32.5%), university education (26.3%), non-university education (18.9%), vocational training (16.7%), basic education (5.6%), (e) employment status: not employed (51.7%), employed (31.3%), students (12.7%) or employed students (4.3%).

The mobility disabilities ranged from mild walking impairment to using crutches, a walker, a wheelchair or other assistive devices. The severity of disability was reported as: (a) moderately severe (34.4%), (b) severe (33.7%), (c) non-severe (15.8%), (d) very severe (13.0%). These categories were formulated according to the law of Disability and working capacity assessment in Lithuania (Disability and working capacity assessment office under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania, 2018).

The sample was divided between participants having acquired (62.8%) and congenital disability (37.2%). Age at the time of acquired disability ranged from 1 to 66 years (M = 14.82, SD = 11.11 years). Most participants had a visible (48.9%) or partly-visible (31.9%) disability. The majority of respondents (73.4%) reported feeling chronic pain due their mobility disability and its frequency was reported as: (a) never (16.3%), (b) rarely (15.0%), (c) sometimes (32.3%), (d) often (28.8%), (e) most of the time (12.5%). Intensity of perceived chronic pain ranged from 0 to 10 (M = 5.02, SD = 2.57).

Research Instruments

Study participants were asked to complete the survey containing four questionnaires and sociodemographic questions. All surveys were completed individually, contacting by each respondent in person. Every participant of the study was informed about the main goal of the study, study procedure, data protection and their right to cancel their participation at any time of the study.

The survey contained four questionnaires measuring individual’s psychological resources (self-efficacy, perceived social support and coping strategies) and adjustment to disability.

Self-efficacy . Participants completed the 10-item General Self-Efficacy scale by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995). All items were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale in the present study was .955.

Perceived social support . MOS Social Support Survey by Sherbourne & Stewart (1991) is an 18-item self-reported measure for assessing the availability of social support. All items were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (all of the time). Originally, this scale consists of four subscales measuring four different types of social support, but in this study, because of high number of analyzed variables, we only used the overall scores. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale in the present study was .967.

Coping strategies . The strategies for coping with stress were assessed using the 28-item Brief COPE, comprising 14 two-item subscales. The Cronbach’s alpha for the Lithuanian subscales ranged from 0.509 (venting) to 0.890 (substance use). The individual item score ranged from 1 (not doing it at all) to 4 (doing it a lot). The subscales were divided into three groups of strategies: 1) emotion-focused coping (use of emotional support, positive reframing, acceptance, religion, humor), 2) problem-focused coping (active coping, planning, use of instrumental support) and 3) maladaptive coping strategies (venting, denial, substance use, behavioral disengagement, self-distraction, self-blame).

Adjustment to disability . The Adjustment to Disability Scale-Revised (ADS-R) is a 32-item self-reporting measure of adjustment to disability among people with disabilities. Each statement is rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Possible scores on the ADS-R range from 32 to 128. A low score reflects a low level of acceptance of the disability. The ADS-R was adapted and modified from the original 50-item Acceptance of Disability (AD) (Groomes & Linkowski, 2007). The Cronbach's alpha for the ADS-R in the present study was 0.957.

We also included sociodemografic variables, such as respondent gender, age, marital status, education and occupation. We categorized disability variables in terms of disability severity, disability onset (acquired or congenital), duration of disability, visability of disability, presence of chronic pain, intensity and frequency of perceived chronic pain. Intensity of chronic pain was measured using a 10-point Likert-type ordinal scale from 0 (no pain at all) to 10 (worst possible pain). Pain frequency was also measured using 5-point Likert-type ordinal scale from 1 (never) to 5 (most of the time).

5.3 Data Analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS software, version 23.0 for Win. Data were presented using descriptive statistics including means, standard deviations, and proportions. A t-test was used for between-groups comparison and Pearson correlation coefficient for correlation analysis. The Mann–Whitney test was used for parameters with non-normal distributions. Three regression analyses (linear and stepwise) to determine which variables were associated with adjustment to disability were used in the study. We verified that the basic assumptions for all three regressions were met for all of our analyses, especially for the normality of residuals. For each dependent variable, we specified the beta regression coefficient, its standard deviation and the associated t- and p-values. Statistical significance was considered when the p-value ≤ 0.05.

Findings

Of the 321 individuals who agreed to participate in this study, 274 (114 males and 160 females) who fully completed the research questionnaires, were included in the current analyses.

Correlations and comparisons

Before testing of differences in adjustment to disability between subgroups based on demographic or disability-related characteristics, some variables were transformed into dichotomous or variables with less categories based on the mean or frequency of the particular variable (e. g. individuals were divided into two age groups based on the mean of the age) (see Table 01 ).

Table 1 -
See Full Size >

Testing of differences in adjustment to disability scores between subgroups based on demographic or disability-related characteristics revealed some statistically significant differences with respect to age, marital status, education, occupation, nature of disability, presence of chronic pain, intensity of chronic pain and frequency of chronic pain (Table 01 ).

Correlation analysis (Table 02 ) shows that adjustment to disability was positively correlated with general self-efficacy, perceived social support, emotion-focused coping and problem-focused coping, and negatively correlated with maladaptive coping. General self-efficacy positively correlated with social support, emotion-focused coping and problem-focused coping, and was negatively related to maladaptive coping. Both emotion-focused coping and problem-focused coping had significantly positive relations to perceived social support.

Table 2 -
See Full Size >

Regression analyses

To obtain a more parsimonious and meaningful understanding of the pattern of significant correlations, we conducted several linear regression analyses.

In the first regression analysis, we entered sociodemographic and disability-related variables as potential predictors of adjustment to disability. Before the regression analysis, nominal and ordinal variables (gender, marital status, education, occupation, nature of disability, severity of disability, visibility of disability, presence of chronic pain, frequency of chronic pain) were transformed into pseudo-variables (see Table 03 ). 

From the group of sociodemographic and disability related variables, respondent’s age, marital status, occupation (being employed or being a student), emerged as significant predictors of incremental variance in adjustment to disability. This model explained 45% of the variance of adjustment scores.

Table 3 -
See Full Size >

In the second regression analysis, we entered general self-efficacy, perceived social support, emotion-focused coping, problem-focused coping and maladaptive coping to predict adjustment to disability (see Table 04 ). 

Table 4 -
See Full Size >

From the group of psychological resources, general self-efficacy, perceived social support and maladaptive coping emerged as significant predictors of incremental variance in adjustment to disability. The model explained 64.1% of the variance of adjustment to disability scores.

In the final stepwise linear regression analysis, we entered demographic and disability-related variables and psychological resources which were significant in previous regression analyses as potential predictors of adjustment to disability (see Table 05 ).

Table 5 -
See Full Size >

As represented in Table 05 , in the stepwise regression analysis, the variables were entered one by one to the analysis at the each step. In the first step, general self-efficacy could potentially predict 62.9% of variance, with standardized beta coefficient of 0.793, p = .001. Both general self-efficacy and participants’ age explained 66.2% of adjustment to disability scores with beta coefficients of 0.757, p = .001 and -.184, p = .001, respectively in the second step. In the third step, perceived social support emerged as the third significant predictor (β = .141, p = .005) together with self-efficacy (β = .681, p = .001) and age (β = -.207, p = .001). In the next step, occupation status was added as the fourth significant variable (β = .109, p = .020) and with self-efficacy (β = .664, p = .001), age (β = -.191, p = .001) and social support (β = .134, p = .008) predicted of 68.6% variance. The results from the final fifth step of the model showed that self-efficacy (β = .603, p = .001), age (β = -.195, p = .001), social support (β = .129, p = .010), occupation (β = .104, p = .025) and maladaptive coping (β = -.095, p = .047) potentially predict individuals’ adjustment to disability. Including all five variables, the Adjusted R Square was 0.693 (69.3% variance explained).

Conclusion

The main focus of this study was to to investigate the importance of psychological resources to adjustment of disability for mobility impaired individuals. General self-efficacy, perceived social support and coping strategies were chosen as possible predictors of adjustment to mobility disability, and we wanted to find out if these predict a stronger adjustment than sociodemographic and disability related variables.

Our findings concur with those from previous studies in which psychological resources played important roles in adjustment. Higher general self-efficacy, higher perceived social support and less used maladaptive coping were significant predicting successful adjustment to mobility disability.

Just like other minority groups, people with disabilities are often segregated or excluded from the society. Social integration process requires effort not only from governmental institutions and policy makers but self-empowerment from disabled person as well in order to gain mastery of the problems caused by external discrimination (Lee & Moore, 1998). Previous studies have confirmed that self-efficacy and perceived social support act as positive contributors decreasing impairment and improving quality of life and general health (Börsbo, Gerdle & Peolsson, 2010), which leads to a better adjustment to disability. A high adjustment to disability does not necessarily mean the person is happy about the disability they now experience, although it does allow for the relinquishment of any false hopes, as well as the successful adaptation of new roles based upon realistic potentials and limitations. The person might benefit from interactions with others, and becomes comfortable with who they are (Livneh & Antonak, 2005). Strong psychological resources may help a person with disability to live a high-quality life regardless of his or her physical limitation.

Even though the correlational analysis revealed significant relationships between problem-focused, emotion-focused and maladaptive coping, only the latter was significant in explaining the variance of adjustment to disability. Contrary to earlier findings (Englbrecht et al., 2012; Alok, Das, Agarwal, Tiwari, Salwahan & Srivastava, 2014) where both problem and emotion-focused coping strategies were associated with better mental health and higher quality of life, we did not find problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies to be significant predictors of adjustment. Meanwhile, frequent use of maladaptive coping strategies contributed to high levels of depression and this can negatively impact adjustment to disability (Ziarko, Mojs, Piasecki, & Samborski, 2014).

Adjustment to disability can be affected not only by psychological resources but by external factors as well, so sociodemographic variables were also taken into account in this study. Anyway, the findings of our study suggest that that sociodemographic and disability related characteristics are poorer predictors of psychological adjustment to disability than psychological resources, and this supports previous findings of the scientific literature (Kennedy, Evans & Sandhu, 2009). The comparisons between groups based on individuals’ sociodemographic characteristics revealed some statistically significant differences with respect to age, marital status, level of education and occupation. With respect to age, younger individuals reported higher scores of adjustment compared to older ones. Similarly, individuals who were married or having a domestic relationship reported being better adjusted to their mobility impairment than those who had no partner (were single, divorced or widowed). In addition, respondents having a higher education and/or being employed also reported higher scores of adjustment compared to respondents who have lower education and/or are unemployed.

In the final stepwise regression, only age and being employed emerged as significant sociodemographic predictors of adjustment to disability. These findings confirms evidence of previous studies stating that life quality and adjustment to disability is higher for younger mobility impaired individuals than older ones (Rukauskienė & Skučas, 2009). There are several possible explanations for this result. Young people with disabilities face many issues related to their independence and future career goals (House, Russell, Kelly, Gerson & Vogel, 2009), but they, just like other young individuals, are more open to new experiences, more active in employment activities and social participation and more optimistic about their future (Palgi, Shrira, Ben-Ezra, Cohen-Fridel & Bodner, 2011; Levasseur, Richard, Gauvin & Raymond, 2010). In contrast, quality of life and psychological well-being tend to decrease while aging, despite the fact that the person may or may not have a mobility impairment (Hennessy & Walker, 2004).

The finding regarding the importance of individuals’ educational level and occupation was not a surprising finding either. Education and employment are the key components of social identity for every adult individual (Asaba & Jackson, 2011). Unfortunately, unemployment is a serious and prevalent problem among persons with mobility disabilities. Nowadays, people with disabilities face social and physical barriers in the labor market and are excluded from social participation. Low employment rates after rehabilitation are a cause for concern, since return to gainful employment may be the most recognized primary marker of successful rehabilitation outcome after disability (Ottomanelli et al., 2012). Increasing the employment of persons with disabilities is associated with both extrinsic economic rewards and intrinsic rewards, such as greater quality of life and greater physical and psychological well-being (Chapin & Holbert, 2010). The findings of our previous research confirmed that mobility impaired individuals with higher educational level reported less internalized anger and externalized hostility compared to individuals with lower educational level. In addition, employed individuals expressed less depression and internalized anger and greater adjustment than unemployed individuals (Alčiauskaitė & Šinkariova, 2018).

In this study we also examined several relationships between adjustment to disability and some disability related factors, including the nature, severity, duration and visibility of disability, presence of chronic pain, strength and intensity of perceived pain. Of all of these factors, only the duration of disability, presence and intensity of chronic pain emerged as significant predictors of person‘s adjustment to disability. Longer duration of disability was related to better adjustment and it is consistent with other studies (Simpson, Eng, Hsieh, Wolfe and the SCIRE Research Team, 2012; Pentland, McColl & Rosenthal, 1995; Krause, 1992). According to previous findings, the duration of acquired disability has a direct effect on health and economic stability, and after some time, adjustment will, at worst, be stable, and, at best, improve significantly with time. It was quite unexpected that in this study, there were no significant differences between persons with congenital and acquired disability. As stated in other studies, people with congenital disabilities are generally assumed to be better adapted than people with acquired disabilities (Bogart, 2014). Nonetheless, there is only a small body of literature examining the impact of disability related factors, such as nature or duration of disability, on adjustment in the mobility impaired population.

Meanwhile, the presence of chronic pain and stronger perceived pain predicted poorer adjustment to disability. Previous studies have confirmed that persons who reported perceiving more intense pain, felt more disabled by their pain problem, more depressed, experienced more psychological distress and had lower health related quality of life (Abbott, Tyni-Lenné & Hedlund, 2010; Mok & Lee, 2008). These effects might be responsible for poorer adjustment to disability but, it was quite unexpected that frequency of pain did not appear as a significant predictor of adjustment to disability and this finding has not confirmed previous research on importance of pain frequency on daily life for people with mobility disabilities (Kalia & O’Connor, 2005).

We are aware that our research may have several limitations. First, both the non-randomness of the recruited sample and the restrictiveness of the geographic area limit the generalizability of the findings to other groups of people with mobility disabilities. Second, was our non-homogeneous sample regarding the cause of disability. The main inclusion criteria for study participants was having a mobility impairment or disability and other disability related factors, but the medical diagnosis was not important in our study. Future studies could concentrate on comparison of internal resources and adjustment to disability between persons with different diagnosis (e. g. persons with spinal cord injury vs persons with arthritis) which could perhaps generate some promising results. Another limitation is that our study lacks longitudinal data and reciprocal analysis so we could not fully explore the process of how indentified factors influence adjustment to disability.

Our findings propose some clinical implications as well. Adjustment to disability, as a process, plays the key role in psychosocial and vocational rehabilitation. Rehabilitation not only provides physical recovery and socialization, but also develops new roles and new self-definitions, so higher adjustment is associated with better success of rehabilitation (Lee & Moore, 1998). Rehabilitation profesionals should take into consideration that improved self-efficacy, reliable social support and adaptive coping could positively impact the process of adjustment and rehabilitation. Self-efficacy is an important promoting factor and is possible to influence using various self-efficacy enhancing programmes (Turner, Holtzman & Mancl, 2007). Efforts to increase patients’ self-efficacy for dealing with disability related problems (e. g., managing pain) might have unique additional benefits for his or her adjustment to disability and general health. In addition, higher self-efficacy may encourage adaptive coping while dealing with daily disease-specific distress (Lowe et al., 2008). Perceived social support can also be increased by applying psychosocial interventions for patient‘s family and friends, who are the main sources of social support for people with disabilities (Elliott & Berry, 2009). In addition, social participation of individuals with mobily disabilities should also be encouraged so their chances to be supported by others could be increased. Finally, some stress management programmes might also be beneficial for teaching more adaptive ways to cope with distress in mobility impaired persons, thus, increasing their psychological well-being and adjustment to disability (de Brouwer et al., 2013). Some disability related characteristics could be moderated as well. Previous evidence-based studies have proved that psychological pain management training can reduce pain catastrophizing, physical pain and disability and increase self-efficacy and medical outcomes for persons with mobility impairment (Somers et al., 2012; Riddle, Keefe, Nay, McKee, Attarian & Jensen, 2011). We hope that our research will be helpful to improve the psychosocial rehabilitation programmes and for better understanding of the process of adjustment to disability.

References

  1. Abbott, A. D., Tyni-Lenné, R., & Hedlund, R. (2010). The influence of psychological factors on pre-operative levels of pain intensity, disability and health-related quality of life in lumbar spinal fusion surgery patients. Physiotherapy, 96(3), 213-221.
  2. Alčiauskaitė, L., & Šinkariova, L. (2018). Judėjimo negalią turinčių asmenų psichologinių resursų reikšmė prisitaikymui prie negalios. Sveikatos mokslai/Health Sciences, 27(6), 128-133.
  3. Alčiauskaitė, L., & Šinkariova, L. (2018). Judėjimo negalią turinčių asmenų išsilavinimo ir užimtumo reikšmė prisitaikymui prie negalios. Pedagogika: mokslo darbai, 129 (1), 112–125.
  4. Alčiauskaitė, L., & Šinkariova, L. (2013). Judėjimo negalią turinčių asmenų negalios priėmimo sąsajos su saviveiksmingumu ir suvokiama socialine parama. Visuomenės sveikata, 3, 87-95.
  5. Alok, R., Das, S. K., Agarwal, G. G., Tiwari, S. C., Salwahan, L., & Srivastava, R. (2014). Problem-focused coping and self-efficacy as correlates of quality of life and severity of fibromyalgia in primary fibromyalgia patients. JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology, 20(6), 314-316.
  6. Asaba, E., & Jackson, J. (2011). Social ideologies embedded in everyday life: A narrative analysis about disability, identities, and occupation. Journal of Occupational Science, 18(2), 139-152.
  7. Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Smith, R. M., & Palmer, N. F. (2010). Impact of positive psychological capital on employee well-being over time. Journal of occupational health psychology, 15(1), 17.
  8. Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health education & behavior, 31(2), 143-164.
  9. Benyon, K., Hill, S., Zadurian, N., & Mallen, C. (2010). Coping strategies and self‐efficacy as predictors of outcome in osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Musculoskeletal Care, 8(4), 224-236.
  10. Bogart, K. R. (2014). The role of disability self-concept in adaptation to congenital or acquired disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 59(1), 107-115.
  11. Börsbo, B., Gerdle, B., & Peolsson, M. (2010). Impact of the interaction between self-efficacy, symptoms and catastrophizing on disability, quality of life and health in chronic pain patients. Disability and rehabilitation, 17(32), 1387-1396.
  12. de Brouwer, S. J., van Middendorp, H., Kraaimaat, F. W., Radstake, T. R., Joosten, I., Donders, A. R. T., ... & Evers, A. W. (2013). Immune responses to stress after stress management training in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis research & therapy, 15(6), R200.
  13. Buenaver, L. F., Edwards, R. R., & Haythornthwaite, J. A. (2007). Pain-related catastrophizing and perceived social responses: Inter-relationships in the context of chronic pain. Pain, 127(3), 234-242.
  14. Cameron, N., Kool, M., Estévez-López, F., López-Chicheri, I., & Geenen, R. (2018). The potential buffering role of self-efficacy and pain acceptance against invalidation in rheumatic diseases. Rheumatology international, 38(2), 283-291.
  15. Chapin, M. H., & Holbert, D. (2010). Employment at closure is associated with enhanced quality of life and subjective well-being for persons with spinal cord injuries. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 54(1), 6-14.
  16. Cijsouw, A., Adriaansen, J. J. E., Tepper, M., Dijksta, C. A., Van Linden, S., van der Woude, L. H. V., ... & van Kuppevelt, D. (2017). Associations between disability-management self-efficacy, participation and life satisfaction in people with long-standing spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 55(1), 47-51.
  17. Craig, A., Tran, Y., Siddall, P., Wijesuriya, N., Lovas, J., Bartrop, R., & Middleton, J. (2013). Developing a model of associations between chronic pain, depressive mood, chronic fatigue, and self-efficacy in people with spinal cord injury. The Journal of Pain, 14(9), 911-920.
  18. Disability and working capacity assessment office under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour of Republic of Lithuania (2018). Capacity for work assessment level. Retrieved from: http://www.ndnt.lt/index.php?-237669251
  19. Dembo, T., Leviton, G. L., & Wright, B. A. (1956). Adjustment to misfortune - a problem of social-psychological rehabilitation. Artificial limbs, 3(2), 4-62.
  20. Elliott, T. R., & Berry, J. W. (2009). Brief problem‐solving training for family caregivers of persons with recent‐onset spinal cord injuries: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(4), 406-422.
  21. Elliott, T., Kurylo, M., & Rivera, P. (2002). Positive growth following acquired disability. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 687– 699). New York: Oxford University Press.
  22. Englbrecht, M., Gossec, L., DeLongis, A., Scholte-Voshaar, M., Sokka, T., Kvien, T. K., & Schett, G. (2012). The impact of coping strategies on mental and physical well-being in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism, 41(4), 545-555. Elsevier.
  23. Englbrecht, M., Kruckow, M., Araujo, E., Rech, J., & Schett, G. (2013). The interaction of physical function and emotional well-being in rheumatoid arthritis-what is the impact on disease activity and coping? In Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism, 42(5), 482-491.
  24. Glass, C. A. (1999). Spinal Cord Injury: Impact and Coping. Leicester: BPS Books.
  25. Groomes, D. A., & Linkowski, D. C. (2007). Examining the structure of the revised acceptance disability scale. Journal of Rehabilitation, 73(3), 3.
  26. Hampton, N. Z. (2004). Subjective well-being among people with spinal cord injuries: The role of self-efficacy, perceived social support, and perceived health. Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin, 48(1), 31-37.
  27. Harrison, C., Falvo, D., Weiss, V., & Holland, B. E. (2017). Medical and psychosocial aspects of chronic illness and disability. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
  28. Hagan Hennessy, C., & Walker, A. (2004). Growing Older: Quality Of Life In Old Age: Quality of Life in Old Age. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
  29. Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of general psychology, 6(4), 307.
  30. House, L. A., Russell, H. F., Kelly, E. H., Gerson, A., & Vogel, L. C. (2009). Rehabilitation and future participation of youth following spinal cord injury: caregiver perspectives. Spinal Cord, 47(12), 882.
  31. Jensen, M. P., Smith, A. E., Bombardier, C. H., Yorkston, K. M., Miró, J., & Molton, I. R. (2014). Social support, depression, and physical disability: age and diagnostic group effects. Disability and health journal, 7(2), 164-172.
  32. Kalia, L. V., & O’Connor, P. W. (2005). Severity of chronic pain and its relationship to quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 11(3), 322-327.
  33. Kennedy, P., & Rogers, B. A. (2000). Anxiety and depression after spinal cord injury: A longitudinal analysis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81, 932-937.
  34. Kennedy, P., Evans, M., & Sandhu, N. (2009). Psychological adjustment to spinal cord injury: The contribution of coping, hope and cognitive appraisals. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 14(1), 17-33.
  35. Kool, M. B., & Geenen, R. (2012). Loneliness in patients with rheumatic diseases: the significance of invalidation and lack of social support. The Journal of Psychology, 146(1-2), 229-241.
  36. Krause, J. S. (1992). Longitudinal changes in adjustment after spinal cord injury: a 15-year study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73(6), 564-568.
  37. Levasseur, M., Richard, L., Gauvin, L., & Raymond, É. (2010). Inventory and analysis of definitions of social participation found in the aging literature: Proposed taxonomy of social activities. Social science & medicine, 71(12), 2141-2149.
  38. Li, L., & Moore, D. (1998). Acceptance of disability and its correlates. The Journal of social psychology, 138(1), 13-25.
  39. Lidal, I. B., Veenstra, M., Hjeltnes, N., & Biering-Sørensen, F. (2008). Health-related quality of life in persons with long-standing spinal cord injury. Spinal cord, 46(11), 710-715.
  40. Livneh, H., & Antonak, R. F. (1997). Psychosocial Adjustment to Chronic Illness and Disability. Aspen Publishers, Inc.: Gaithersburg.
  41. Livneh, H., & Antonak, R. F. (2005). Psychosocial adaptation to chronic illness and disability: A primer for counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83(1), 12-20.
  42. Livneh, H., & Wilson, L. M. (2003). Coping strategies as predictors and mediators of disability-related variables and psychosocial adaptation: An exploratory investigation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 46(4), 194-208.
  43. Livneh, H., & Martz, E. (2014). Coping strategies and resources as predictors of adaptation among people with spinal cord injury. Rehabilitation psychology, 59(3), 329.
  44. Lowe, R., Cockshott, Z., Greenwood, R., Kirwan, J. R., Almeida, C., Richards, P., & Hewlett, S. (2008). Self-efficacy as an appraisal that moderates the coping-emotion relationship: Associations among people with rheumatoid arthritis. Psychology and Health, 23(2), 155-174.
  45. Malcarne, V. L., Hansdottir, I., McKinney, A., Upchurch, R., Greenbergs, H. L., Henstorf, G. H., ... & Weisman, M. H. (2007). Medical signs and symptoms associated with disability, pain, and psychosocial adjustment in systemic sclerosis. The Journal of rheumatology, 34(2), 359-367.
  46. Müller, R., Peter, C., Cieza, A., & Geyh, S. (2012). The role of social support and social skills in people with spinal cord injury—a systematic review of the literature. Spinal Cord, 50(2), 94.
  47. Mok, L. C., & Lee, I. F. K. (2008). Anxiety, depression and pain intensity in patients with low back pain who are admitted to acute care hospitals. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17(11), 1471-1480.
  48. Motl, R. W., McAuley, E., Snook, E. M., & Gliottoni, R. C. (2009). Physical activity and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: intermediary roles of disability, fatigue, mood, pain, self-efficacy and social support. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 14(1), 111-124.
  49. Ottomanelli, L., Goetz, L. L., Suris, A., McGeough, C., Sinnott, P. L., Toscano, R., ... & Holmes, S. A. (2012). Effectiveness of supported employment for veterans with spinal cord injuries: results from a randomized multisite study. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 93(5), 740-747.
  50. Palgi, Y., Shrira, A., Ben-Ezra, M., Cohen-Fridel, S., & Bodner, E. (2011). The relationships between daily optimism, daily pessimism, and affect differ in young and old age. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(8), 1294-1299.
  51. Pentland, W., McColl, M. A., & Rosenthal, C. (1995). The effect of aging and duration of disability on long term health outcomes following spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 33(7), 367.
  52. Peter, C., Müller, R., Cieza, A., & Geyh, S. (2012). Psychological resources in spinal cord injury: a systematic literature review. Spinal Cord, 50(3), 188.
  53. Ramírez-Maestre, C., & Esteve, R. (2014). The role of sex/gender in the experience of pain: resilience, fear, and acceptance as central variables in the adjustment of men and women with chronic pain. The Journal of Pain, 15(6), 608-618.
  54. Rakauskienė, E., & Skučas, K. (2009). Paraplegikų gyvenimo kokybė lyties, amžiaus, fizinio aktyvumo, negalios aspektais. Education. Physical Training. Sport, 72(1), 92-98.
  55. Riddle, D. L., Keefe, F. J., Nay, W. T., McKee, D., Attarian, D. E., & Jensen, M. P. (2011). Pain coping skills training for patients with elevated pain catastrophizing who are scheduled for knee arthroplasty: a quasi-experimental study. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 92(6), 859-865.
  56. Rowe, M. A. (1996). The impact of internal and external resources on functional outcomes in chronic illness. Research in nursing & health, 19(6), 485-497.
  57. Salaffi, F., Sarzi-Puttini, P., Girolimetti, R., Atzeni, F., Gasparini, S., & Grassi, W. (2009). Health-related quality of life in fibromyalgia patients: a comparison with rheumatoid arthritis patients and the general population using the SF-36 health survey. Clinical & Experimental Rheumatology, 27(5), 67-74.
  58. Simpson, L. A., Eng, J. J., Hsieh, J. T., & Wolfe and the Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Evidence (SCIRE) Research Team, D. L. (2012). The health and life priorities of individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Journal of neurotrauma, 29(8), 1548-1555.
  59. Somers, T. J., Blumenthal, J. A., Guilak, F., Kraus, V. B., Schmitt, D. O., Babyak, M. A., ... & Shelby, R. A. (2012). Pain coping skills training and lifestyle behavioral weight management in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled study. Pain, 153(6), 1199-1209.
  60. Turner, J. A, Holtzman, S., & Mancl, L. (2007). Mediators, moderators, and predictors of therapeutic change in cognitive-behavioral therapy for chronic pain. Pain, 127, 276-86.
  61. Van Leeuwen, C. M. C., Kraaijeveld, S., Lindeman, E., & Post, M. W. M. (2012). Associations between psychological factors and quality of life ratings in persons with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Spinal cord, 50(3), 174.
  62. Weitzner, E., Surca, S., Wiese, S., Dion, A., Roussos, Z., Renwick, R., & Yoshida, K. (2011). Getting on with life: positive experiences of living with a spinal cord injury. Qualitative Health Research, 21(11), 1455-1468.

Copyright information

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

About this article

Publication Date

18 December 2019

eBook ISBN

978-1-80296-047-1

Publisher

Future Academy

Volume

48

Print ISBN (optional)

-

Edition Number

1st Edition

Pages

1-286

Subjects

Health, psychology, health psychology, health systems, health services, social issues, teenager, children's health, teenager health

Cite this article as:

Alčiauskaitė, L., & Šinkariova, L. (2019). The Importance Of Psychological Resources To Individuals’ Adjustment To Mobility Disability. In Z. Bekirogullari, M. Y. Minas, R. X. Thambusamy, & C. Albuquerque (Eds.), Health and Health Psychology - icH&Hpsy 2018, vol 48. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 184-199). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.11.20