<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Silverman, Arielle M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verrall, Aimee M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alschuler, Kevin N</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Smith, Amanda E</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ehde, Dawn M</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bouncing back again, and again: a qualitative study of resilience in people with multiple sclerosis.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Disabil Rehabil</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016 Feb 15</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1-9</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Purpose The purpose of this study was to describe the meaning of resilience, factors facilitating resilience and barriers to resilience, from the perspective of persons with multiple sclerosis (MS), their care partners and community stakeholders. Method We conducted four focus groups: two with middle-aged (36-62 years) individuals with MS [one with men (n&amp;thinsp;=&amp;thinsp;6) and one with women (n&amp;thinsp;=&amp;thinsp;6)], one for partners of individuals with MS (n&amp;thinsp;=&amp;thinsp;11) and one with community stakeholders serving people with MS (n&amp;thinsp;=&amp;thinsp;9). We asked participants to describe what resilience means to them, what factors facilitate resilience and what barriers to resilience they perceive. We analyzed the focus group transcripts for emerging themes and sub-themes. Results Participants found it difficult to generate a concise definition of resilience, but they generated evocative descriptions of the concept. Psychological adaptation, social connection, life meaning, planning and physical wellness emerged as facilitators of resilience. Resilience depletion, negative thoughts and feelings, social limitations, social stigma and physical fatigue emerged as barriers to resilience. Conclusion The unpredictable nature of MS can present unique challenges to resilient adjustment, especially during middle age. However, several factors can contribute to resilience and quality of life, and these factors are amenable to intervention. Implications for Rehabilitation Resilience is the capacity to bounce back and thrive when faced with challenges. People with MS develop resilience through psychological adaptation, social connection, life meaning, planning ahead and physical wellness. Barriers to resilience with MS include burnout, negative thoughts and feelings, social difficulties, stigma and fatigue. Interventions should address both individual and social factors that support resilience, such as promoting positive thinking, planning and engagement in meaningful activities.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Smith, Amanda E</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Molton, Ivan R</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">McMullen, Kara</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jensen, Mark P</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brief Report: Sexual Function, Satisfaction and use of Aids for Sexual Activity in Middle-Aged Adults with Long-Term Physical Disability</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">muscular dystrophy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">post-polio syndrome</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">sexual dysfunction</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">spinal cord injury</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">07/2015</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Summer 2015, Volume 21, No 3</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">227-232</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Background: Sexuality is an important aspect of quality of life in individuals with disabilities, yet little is known about what factors contribute to sexual satisfaction as these individuals age. Method: Middle-aged adults with physical disabilities completed a cross-sectional survey that included measures of sexual activity, function, and satisfaction. Results: Consistent with studies of able-bodied adults, sexual function was the strongest predictor of satisfaction. however, depression also predicted sexual satisfaction for women. Use of aids for sexual activity varied by disability type and was generally associated with better function. Lowest levels of sexual satisfaction were reported by men with SCI. Conclusion: Depression may negatively impact sexual satisfaction in women, beyond contributions of sexual dysfunction, and effective use of sexual aids may improve function in this population.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">227</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>10</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amtmann, Dagmar</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Better Outcome Measures for Better Rehabilitation Outcomes</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Presentation at the 28th Annual Justus F. Lehmann Symposium, University of Washington, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seattle, WA</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">05/2013</style></date></pub-dates></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>10</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Salem, Rana</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Johnson, Kurt L</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amtmann, Dagmar</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Body mass index and symptoms and quality of life indicators of individuals aging with disabilities</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">American Public Health Association (APHA) Annual Meeting</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">San Francisco, CA</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Introduction: People with disabilities (PWD) may find it more difficult to eat a healthy diet, control their weight, and be physically active. Health risks of obesity for PWD are well known, but the effects of obesity on secondary conditions and QoL has not been well established. Methods: PROMIS measures of fatigue, pain interference, physical and social function, depression, and sleep and wake disturbance were completed by individuals with muscular dystrophy (339), multiple sclerosis (579), post-polio syndrome (443), and spinal cord injury (488) (total N=1849) participating in an ongoing longitudinal survey of people aging with a disability. Self-reported weight and height were used to calculate BMI. T-scores by BMI categories were compared to the PROMIS US population norms. Results: The mean BMI of respondents was 26.4 kg/m2 with 5.3% classified as underweight (&amp;lt;18.5), 41.6% normal-weight (18.5&amp;lt;25), 29.7% overweight (25&amp;lt;30), and 23.4% obese (&amp;ge;30). Overweight and obese respondents tended to be older than normal weight individuals (p&amp;lt;0.05) and of male gender (p&amp;lt;0.0001). Compared to the US general population, individuals with disabilities reported a higher symptom burden and poorer QoL on all measures (all p&amp;lt;0.0001). Compared to the normal weight group obese individuals reported worse functioning on all QoL domains except depression (all p&amp;lt;0.05). In comparison to the overweight group the obese group also reported worse physical and social functioning, more fatigue and depression. Conclusion: Obesity in PWD is associated with a higher symptom burden and self-reported QoL. This should be considered when designing and deploying interventions to reduce obesity.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alschuler, Kevin N</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gibbons, Laura E</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rosenberg, Dori E</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ehde, Dawn M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verrall, Aimee</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bamer, Alyssa M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jensen, Mark P</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Body mass index and waist circumference in persons aging with muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, post-polio syndrome, and spinal cord injury.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Disability and Health Journal</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Disabil Health J</style></alt-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012 Jul</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">177-84</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;BACKGROUND: Body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) are well-understood in the general population, but are not adequately understood among persons with disabilities. OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare BMI and WC among individuals with muscular dystrophy (MD), multiple sclerosis (MS), post-polio syndrome (PPS), and spinal cord injury (SCI). BMI scores were also compared to normative data of the U.S. population, with consideration for age, sex, and mobility limitations. METHODS: Persons with MD (n = 339), MS (n = 597), PPS (n = 443), and SCI (n = 488) completed postal surveys that included self-reported BMI and WC data. NHANES data were used to compare the current sample with a representative US sample. RESULTS: Participants with PPS had higher BMI than participants with MD, MS, and SCI. In addition, participants with MS had significantly higher BMI relative to participants with SCI. BMI was significantly positively associated with age, years since diagnosis, mobility, and interactions of some of these factors. Relative to the general population, BMI was lower in MD, MS, and SCI across age groups, as well as in men with PPS and women ages 60-74 years with PPS. No significant differences were identified between MD, MS, PPS, and SCI in WC. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of group differences in BMI and absence of group differences in WC suggests that BMI may not accurately represent health risk in SCI, MD, and possibly MS, because of biasing elements of the conditions, such as changes in body composition and mobility limitations.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22726858?dopt=Abstract</style></custom1></record></records></xml>