Meaning in life and physical quality of life: Cross-lagged associations during inpatient rehabilitation
Katarzyna Czekierda , Karolina Horodyska , Anna Banik , Lea Wilhelm , Nina Knoll , Aleksandra Łuszczyńska
AbstractOBJECTIVES: This study investigated reciprocal associations between meaning in life and physical quality of life (QOL) in the rehabilitation context. It was hypothesized that a higher level of meaning in life at Time 1 (T1) would predict better physical QOL at Time 2 (T2), and that better physical QOL (T1) would predict a higher level of meaning in life (T2). RESEARCH METHOD: This longitudinal study enrolled 339 participants (aged 19-84 years, 57.9% women) who provided self-report data (T1) at the beginning of the inpatient rehabilitation for central nervous system diseases (CNSD; e.g., stroke; n = 89) or musculoskeletal system diseases (MSD; e.g., dorsopathies; n = 250), and at the end of the inpatient rehabilitation (T2, 1-month follow-up). Data were collected in 6 inpatient rehabilitation centers. Manifest cross-lagged panel analyses were conducted for the total sample. RESULTS: Path analyses indicated a significant cross-lagged-effect (.126, p < .002 [95% BCI: 0.020, 0.132]) from meaning in life (T1) to physical QOL at the follow-up (T2). Physical QOL (T1) did not precede meaning in life (T2). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients participating in rehabilitation due to CNSD or MSD, a higher level of meaning in life may precede better physical QOL. Interventions aimed at physical QOL improvement among patients who participated in an inpatient rehabilitation may benefit from a focus on raising patients' meaning in life. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
|Journal series||Rehabilitation Psychology, ISSN 0090-5550, e-ISSN 1939-1544, (N/A 70 pkt)|
|Publication size in sheets||0.5|
|Keywords in English||meaning in life, quality of life, cross-lagged panel analysis, inpatient rehabilitation, stroke|
|ASJC Classification||; ; ;|
|Publication indicators||: 2018 = 0.885; : 2017 = 1.75 (2) - 2017=2.304 (5)|
|Citation count*||1 (2020-10-27)|
* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.