Telerehabilitation may be effective on average but is not equally effective among all people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Thus, the purpose of this secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial was to explore whether baseline characteristics of participants with MS influence fatigue and physical activity outcomes of three telerehabilitation interventions.
Methods
Participants were randomized to contact-control intervention (CC), physical activity-only intervention (PA-only), and physical activity plus fatigue self-management intervention (FM+). The 12-week interventions were delivered over the phone. Sociodemographic (age and income), clinical (comorbidities, mental function and physical function), psychosocial (self-efficacy, outcome expectations and goal-setting), and behavioural baseline characteristics (step count and fatigue self-management behaviors) were used in a moderated regression analysis and a responder analysis to examine their influence on the Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS) and Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ) at post-test (i.e. immediately post-interventions).
Results
No interactions terms were statistically significant in the moderation analysis. However, the responder analysis showed that baseline psychosocial characteristics and mental function were significantly different (p < 0.05) between responders and non-responders. Specifically, non-responders on the FIS at post-test in the PA-only intervention had significantly lower baseline scores in goal setting for engaging in fatigue self-management behaviours. Also, non-responders on the GLTEQ at post-test in the FM+ intervention had significantly worse baseline scores in mental function.
Discussion
Further research is needed to understand the complex relationship among baseline characteristics, telerehabilitation and response heterogeneity. We discuss how research on examining response heterogeneity may be advanced by conducting mega-clinical trials, secondary analyses of big data, meta-analyses and employing non-traditional research designs.
DeSenaAD.Immune-mediated CNS diseases: A review. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep2017;
5: 134–142.
2.
GholamzadMEbtekarMArdestaniMS, et al.
A comprehensive review on the treatment approaches of multiple sclerosis: Currently and in the future. Inflamm Res2019;
68: 25–38.
3.
FinlaysonM.Multiple Sclerosis Rehabilitation: From impairment to participation.
Boca Raton, FL:
Taylor & Francis, 2012, p. 603.
4.
AmatyaBKhanFGaleaM.Rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis: An overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2019;
1: CD012732.
5.
FinlaysonMGarciaJDChoC.Occupational therapy service use among people aging with multiple sclerosis. Am J Occup Ther2008;
62: 320–328.
6.
FinlaysonMPlowMChoC.Use of physical therapy services among middle-aged and older adults with multiple sclerosis. Phys Ther2010;
90: 1607–1618.
7.
PlowMChoCFinlaysonM.Utilization of health promotion and wellness services among middle-aged and older adults with multiple sclerosis in the mid-west US. Health Prom Int2010;
25: 318–330.
8.
RoddamHRogDJanssenJ, et al.
Inequalities in access to health and social care among adults with multiple sclerosis: A scoping review of the literature. Mult Scler Relat Disord2019;
28: 290–304.
9.
Di TellaSPagliariCBlasiV, et al. Integrated telerehabilitation approach in multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare2019: 1357633X19850381.
10.
YeroushalmiSMaloniHCostelloK, et al. Telemedicine and multiple sclerosis: A comprehensive literature review. J Telemed Telecare2019: 1357633X19840097.
11.
BombardierCHEhdeDMGibbonsLE, et al.
Telephone-based physical activity counseling for major depression in people with multiple sclerosis. J Consult Clin Psychol2013;
81: 89–99.
12.
EhdeDMElzeaJLVerrallAM, et al.
Efficacy of a telephone-delivered self-management intervention for persons with multiple sclerosis: A randomized controlled trial with a one-year follow-up. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2015;
96: 1945–1958.e1942.
13.
FinlaysonMPreissnerKChoC, et al.
Randomized trial of a teleconference-delivered fatigue management program for people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2011;
17: 1130–1140.
14.
EhdeDMArewasikpornAAlschulerKN, et al.
Moderators of treatment outcomes after telehealth self-management and education in adults with multiple sclerosis: A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2018;
99: 1265–1272.
15.
FinlaysonMPreissnerKChoC.Outcome moderators of a fatigue management program for people with multiple sclerosis. Am J Occup Ther2012;
66: 187–197.
16.
FinlaysonMPreissnerKChoC.Impact of comorbidity on fatigue management intervention outcomes among people with multiple sclerosis: An exploratory investigation. Int J MS Care2013;
15: 21–26.
17.
BissonEJFakoladeAPetrinJ, et al.
Exercise interventions in multiple sclerosis rehabilitation need better reporting on comorbidities: A systematic scoping review. Clin Rehabil2017;
31: 1305–1312.
18.
MagyariMSorensenPS.Comorbidity in multiple sclerosis. Frontiers in Neurology2020;
11: 851.
19.
FakoladeABissonEJPétrinJ, et al.
Effect of comorbidities on outcomes of neurorehabilitation interventions in multiple sclerosis: A scoping review. Int J MS Care2016;
18: 282–290.
20.
KunzM.On responder analyses in the framework of within subject comparisons – considerations and two case studies. Stat Med2014;
33: 2939–2952.
21.
PlowMFinlaysonMLiuJ, et al.
Randomized controlled trial of a telephone-delivered physical activity and fatigue self-management interventions in adults with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2019;
100: 2006–2014.
22.
PlowMFinlaysonMMotlRW, et al.
Randomized controlled trial of a teleconference fatigue management plus physical activity intervention in adults with multiple sclerosis: Rationale and research protocol. BMC Neurol2012;
12: 122.
23.
LearmonthYCMotlRWSandroffBM, et al.
Validation of patient determined disease steps (PDDS) scale scores in persons with multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol2013;
13: 37.
24.
McAuleyEMotlRWMorrisKS, et al.
Enhancing physical activity adherence and well-being in multiple sclerosis: A randomised controlled trial. Mult Scler2007;
13: 652–659.
25.
KruppLBLaRoccaNGMuir-NashJ, et al.
The fatigue severity scale: Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Arch Neurol1989;
46: 1121–1123.
26.
KatzmanRBrownTFuldP, et al.
Validation of a short Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test of cognitive impairment. Am J Psychiatry1983;
140: 734–739.
27.
MorrisTPKahanBCWhiteIR.Choosing sensitivity analyses for randomised trials: Principles. BMC Med Res Methodol2014;
14: 11.
28.
BanduraA.Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1986.
29.
BairdJFMotlRW.Response heterogeneity with exercise training and physical activity interventions among persons with multiple sclerosis. Neurorehab Neural Repair2019;
33: 3–14.
30.
PackerTBrinkNSauriolA.Managing Fatigue: A six-week course for energy conservation.
Tucson, AZ:
Therapy Skill Builders, 1995.
31.
PlowMMotlRWFinlaysonM, et al.
Intervention mediators in a randomized controlled trial to increase physical activity and fatigue self-management behaviors among adults with multiple sclerosis. Ann Behav Med2020;
54: 213–221.
32.
FiskJDRitvoPGRossL, et al.
Measuring the functional impact of fatigue: Initial validation of the fatigue impact scale. Clin Infect Dis1994;
18: S79–S83.
33.
GodinGShephardRJ.A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Can J Appl Sport Sci1985;
10: 141–146.
34.
MathiowetzV.Test-retest reliability and convergent validity of the Fatigue Impact Scale for persons with multiple sclerosis. Am J Occup Ther2003;
57: 389–395.
35.
GosneyJLScottJASnookEM, et al.
Physical activity and multiple sclerosis: Validity of self-report and objective measures. Fam Community Health2007;
30: 144–150.
36.
SikesEMRichardsonEVCederbergKJ, et al.
Use of the Godin leisure-time exercise questionnaire in multiple sclerosis research: A comprehensive narrative review. Disabil Rehabil2019;
41: 1243–1267.
37.
HobartJLampingDFitzpatrickR, et al.
The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): A new patient-based outcome measure. Brain2001;
124: 962–973.
38.
RiaziAHobartJCLampingDL, et al.
Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): Reliability and validity in hospital-based samples. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry2002;
73: 701–704.
39.
HobartJCRiaziALampingDL, et al.
How responsive is the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29)? A comparison with some other self-report scales. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry2005;
76: 1539–1543.
40.
MallikPSFinlaysonMMathiowetzV, et al.
Psychometric evaluation of the Energy Conservation Strategies Survey. Clin Rehabil2005;
19: 538–543.
41.
LiepoldAMathiowetzV.Reliability and validity of the Self-Efficacy for Performing Energy Conservation Strategies Assessment for persons with multiple sclerosis. Occup Ther Int2005;
12: 234–249.
42.
DuncanTEMcAuleyE.Social support and efficacy cognitions in exercise adherence: A latent growth curve analysis. J Behav Med1993;
16: 199–218.
43.
McAuleyEMotlRWWhiteSM, et al.
Validation of the multidimensional outcome expectations for exercise scale in ambulatory, symptom-free persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2010;
91: 100–105.
44.
RovniakLSAndersonESWinettRA, et al.
Social cognitive determinants of physical activity in young adults: A prospective structural equation analysis. Ann Behav Med2002;
24: 149–156.
45.
HayesAF.Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A regression-based approach. 2nd ed.
New York:
Guilford Press, 2018, p. 692.
46.
FaulFErdfelderEBuchnerA, et al.
Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods2009;
41: 1149–1160.
47.
CohenJ.Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed.
Hillsdale, NJ:
L. Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
48.
NorburyASeymourB.Response heterogeneity: Challenges for personalised medicine and big data approaches in psychiatry and chronic pain. F1000Res2018;
7: 55.
49.
SennS.Mastering variation: Variance components and personalised medicine. Stat Med2016;
35: 966–977.
50.
CaseyBCooteSHayesS, et al.
Changing physical activity behavior in people with Multiple Sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2018;
99: 2059–2075.
51.
MotlRWMcAuleyESnookEM, et al.
Physical activity and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: Intermediary roles of disability, fatigue, mood, pain, self-efficacy and social support. Psychol, Health Med2009;
14: 111–124.
52.
MotlRWMcAuleyESnookEM.Physical activity and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: Possible roles of social support, self-efficacy, and functional limitations. Rehabil Psychol2007;
52: 143–151.
53.
AgostiniMMojaLBanziR, et al.
Telerehabilitation and recovery of motor function: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare2015;
21: 202–213.
54.
MemonMCheahJRamayahT, et al.
Moderation analysis: Issues and guidelines. J Appl Struct Equ Model2019;
3: i–xi.
55.
HayesAFRockwoodNJ.Regression-based statistical mediation and moderation analysis in clinical research: Observations, recommendations, and implementation. Behav Res Ther2017;
98: 39–57.
56.
TenanMSVigotskyADCaldwellAR.Comment on: ‘A Method to Stop Analyzing Random Error and Start Analyzing Differential Responders to Exercise’. Sports Med2020;
50: 431–434.
57.
AguinisHBeatyJCBoikRJ, et al.
Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year review. J Appl Psychol2005;
90: 94–107.
58.
PlowMMathiowetzVLoweDA.Comparing individualized rehabilitation to a group wellness intervention for persons with multiple sclerosis. Am J Health Promot2009;
24: 23–26.
59.
NormanGRSloanJAWyrwichKW.Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care2003;
41: 582–592.
60.
SilveiraSLMotlRW.Do Social Cognitive Theory constructs explain response heterogeneity with a physical activity behavioral intervention in multiple sclerosis?Contemp Clin Trials Commun2019;
15: 100366.
61.
Rendas-BaumRYangMCattelinF, et al.
A novel approach to estimate the minimally important difference for the Fatigue Impact Scale in multiple sclerosis patients. Qual Life Res2010;
19: 1349–1358.
ShrierIPlattRWSteeleRJ.Mega-trials vs. meta-analysis: Precision vs. heterogeneity?Contemp Clin Trials2007;
28: 324–328.
64.
CollinsLM.Optimization of Behavioral, Biobehavioral, and Biomedical Interventions: The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST).
Cham:
Springer, 2018, p. 297.
