Objective: The aim of the study was to obtain the views and priorities of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) to inform the design of a professionally guided self-care programme.
Design: A three-round postal Delphi survey was used as a research tool.
Setting: The study was conducted at the Centre for Research in Rehabilitation at Brunel University in London.
Subjects: The respondent panel consisted of 200 volunteers with MS of whom 136 responded to the survey (68%). Respondents were recruited through voluntary organizations throughout the UK. The only selection criterion was that the diagnosis of MS was confirmed by the general practitioner.
Main outcome measures: The results from each of the three rounds of the Delphi survey were the outcome measures.
Results: One hundred and one people used ten or more self-care strategies (74%). Round 1 data revealed the diversity of practices reported, crossing many domains of life such as daily chores, leisure, relationships and physical and mental health. The top five priorities identified in rounds 2 and 3 concerned coping strategies, social support, independence in daily living, rest and mobility. Complete consensus about priorities was not achieved. However, agreement about priorities approached stability across rounds 2 and 3 and a highly significant Kendall's coefficient of concordance indicated there was good agreement within round 3 group rankings (W = 0.46, chi-squared = 499.37, df = 9, p<0.001, N = 122).
Conclusion: Self-care practices were widespread, and those most commonly used could be identified. This survey method allows the views and priorities of this consumer group to be revealed. The information obtained can be used to develop services where the professional guides and encourages appropriate self-management based upon the issues that people with MS consider to be most important.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
De Souza LH. Multiple sclerosis: approaches to management. London: Chapman and Hall, 1990.
2.
Robinson I. Multiple sclerosis. London: Routledge, 1988.
3.
Baer G, Lewis Y. The rehabilitation of a severely disabled multiple sclerosis patient. Physiotherapy1987; 73: 436–438.
4.
Robinson I. Managing multiple sclerosis: a partnership between professional practitioners and patients. In: De Souza LH ed. Multiple sclerosis: approaches to management. London: Chapman and Hall, 1990: 1–15.
5.
National Health Service Executive. Research: what's in it for consumers. 1st Report of the Standing Advisory Group on Consumer Involvement in the NHS R&D Programme. Leeds: NHSE Publications, 1998.
6.
Gould RA, Clum GA. A meta-analysis of self-help treatment approaches. Clin Psychol Rev1993; 13: 169–186.
7.
Dean K. Conceptual, theoretical and methodological issues in self-care research. Soc Sci Med1989; 29: 117–123.
8.
Stuifbergen AK. Roberts GJ. Health promotion practices of women with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1997; 78 (suppl): S3–S9.
9.
Connelly C. Self-care and the chronically ill patient. Nurs Clin North Am1987; 22: 621–629.
10.
Sibley WA. Therapeutic claims in multiple sclerosis, second edition. London: Macmillan Press, 1988.
11.
McLaughlin J, Zeeberg I. Self-care and multiple sclerosis: a view from two cultures. Soc Sci Med1993; 315–329.
12.
Lock S. Self help groups: The fourth estate in medicine?BMJ1986; 293: 1596–1600.
13.
Trojan A. Benefits of self-help groups: a survey of 232 members from 65 disease-related groups. Soc Sci Med1989; 29: 225–232.
14.
McKenna HP. The Delphi technique: a worthwhile research for nursing?J Adv Nurs1994; 19: 1221–1225.
15.
Goodman CM. The Delphi technique: a critique. J Adv Nurs1987; 12: 729–734.
16.
Jeffery G, Hache G, Lehr R. A group-based Delphi application: defining rural career counseling needs. Measurement Evaluation Counselling Devel1995; 28: 45–60.
17.
Saranto K, Leino-Kilpi H. Computer literacy in nursing: developing the information technology syllabus in nursing education. J Adv Nurs1997; 25: 377–385.
18.
Grol R, Van Beurden W, Binkhorst T, Toemen T. Patient education in family practice: the consensus reached by patients, doctors and experts. Family Pract1991; 8: 133–139.
19.
Ricketts T, Kirshbaum MN. Helpfulness of mental health day care: client and staff views. J Adv Nurs1994; 20: 297–306.
20.
Tepper S, DeJong G, Wilkerson D, Brannon R. Criteria for selection of a payment method for inpatient medical rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1995; 76: 349–354.
21.
Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1973.
22.
Williams PL, Webb C. The Delphi technique: a methodological discussion. J Adv Nurs1994; 19: 180–186.
23.
Jarir S, Sincoff MZ, Talley WK. Stability and agreement criteria for the termination of Delphi studies. Tech Forecast Social Change1979; 13: 83–90.
24.
Buck AJ, Gross M, Hakim S, Weinblatt J. Using the Delphi process to analyse policy implementation: A post hoc case from vocational rehabilitation. Policy Sci1993; 26: 271–288.
25.
Siegel S, Castellen NJ. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences, second edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988.
26.
Swank R. Multiple sclerosis: 20 years on a low fat diet. Arch Neurol1970; 23: 460–474.
27.
Monks J. Experiencing symptoms in chronic illness: fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Int Disabil Stud1989; 11(2): 78–83.
