Zhang a new institutional based rehab model after the sichuan eq in china crdr.disaster.symp.isprm11
1. 中期考核 研究生：朱杰 导师 ：励建安 教授 A new institutional based rehabilitation model after the Sichuan earthquake in China Xia Zhang, MD, PhD candidate Mentor: Jianan Li Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China Caring For Children Foundation, Hongkong, China
2.
3.
4. NHV Model NGO(CFCF) Local Hospital Health Bureau Disabled Person’s Federation IBR CBR Handicap International Physiatrician PT/Nurse Rehab equipment Earthquake Survivors Cooperation in NGOs, Health departments and rehabilitation Volunteers
5. NGO(CFCF) Local Hospital Health Bureau Disabled Person’s Federation IBR CBR Handicap International Local hospital NHV Model
6. NGO(CFCF) Local Hospital Health Bureau Disabled Person’s Federation IBR CBR Handicap International Local hospital Health Bureau NHV Model
7. NGO(CFCF) Local Hospital Health Bureau Disabled Person’s Federation IBR CBR Handicap International Local hospital Health Bureau Handicap International NHV Model
8. NGO(CFCF) Local Hospital Health Bureau Disabled Person’s Federation IBR CBR Handicap International Local hospital Health Bureau Handicap International Disabled Person’s Federation NHV Model
9. Demography data Injury classification Rehab needs Physical function Mental health Social integration NHV Model 2008 Baseline 2010 Follow-up M county
10. M county VS A county S county VS VS NHV Model 2008 Baseline 2010 Follow-up
13. Functional recovery in SCIs 0.127 -1.58 344±80.8 322±87.0 CHART 0.039 -2.18 35.9±8.2 39.2 ±8.0 PTSD 0.011 -1.66 71.4±10.2 68.3±12 WHOQOL 0.000 -5.01 9.6±8.2 5.8±7.0 WSCI II walking index 0.002 -3.37 81.9±18.7 71.2±25.8 ADL SCI P value Paired t test Follow-up Baseline Outcome Diagnosis
14. Functional recovery in SCIs 0.127 -1.58 344±80.8 322±87.0 CHART 0.039 -2.18 35.9±8.2 39.2 ±8.0 PTSD 0.011 -1.66 71.4±10.2 68.3±12 WHOQOL 0.000 -5.01 9.6±8.2 5.8±7.0 WSCI II walking index 0.002 -3.37 81.9±18.7 71.2±25.8 ADL SCI P value Paired t test Follow-up Baseline Outcome Diagnosis
15. Comparison between M-S county and M-A county M county S county A county ADL 91.1±10.5 87.3±16.5 91.2±11.8 LSQ 55.7±16.5 33.6±9.80 50.0±9.86 SF-36 54.9±16.1 51.9±13.1 54.9±16.8 PCL-C 34.2±10.6 39.3±9.43 33.6±9.80
16. Comparison in M-A county Mianzhu Shifang Anxian P ADL 91.1±10.5 42.1±46.3 93.3±14.2 LSQ 47.3±9.65 50.3±9.53 44.8±8.26 SF-36 54.9±16.1 51.9±13.1 54.9±16.8 PTSD 35.6±10.0 34.3±10.1 39.3±9.60 M county S county A county P ADL 91.1±10.5 87.3±16.5 91.2±11.8 0.113 LSQ 55.7±16.5 33.6±9.80 50.0±9.86 0.068 SF-36 54.9±16.1 51.9±13.1 54.9±16.8 0.172 PCL-C 34.2±10.6 39.3±9.43 33.6±9.80 0.603
17. Comparison in M-S county Mianzhu Shifang Anxian P ADL 91.1±10.5 42.1±46.3 93.3±14.2 LSQ 47.3±9.65 50.3±9.53 44.8±8.26 SF-36 54.9±16.1 51.9±13.1 54.9±16.8 PTSD 35.6±10.0 34.3±10.1 39.3±9.60 M county S county A county P ADL 91.1±10.5 87.3±16.5 91.2±11.8 0.003 LSQ 55.7±16.5 33.6±9.80 50.0±9.86 0.002 SF-36 54.9±16.1 51.9±13.1 54.9±16.8 0.027 PTSD 34.2±10.6 39.3±9.43 33.6±9.80 0.000
18. Economic outcome-average cost 1696 Total 858 191 647 132 P county 130 D county 67 35 92 J county 24 81 Z county 70 B county 226 3 97 A county 303 59 377 M county Surgery Outpatient Inpatient Site
19. Economic outcome-average cost 1696 Total 858 191 647 132 P county 130 D county 67 35 92 J county 24 81 Z county 70 B county 226 3 97 A county 303 59 377 M county Surgery Outpatient Inpatient Site
20. Economic outcome-average cost 1696 Total 858 191 647 132 P county 130 D county 67 35 92 J county 24 81 Z county 70 B county 226 3 97 A county 303 59 377 M county Surgery Outpatient Inpatient Site
