Evaluation of the effectiveness of professionally guided self-care for people with multiple sclerosis living in the community: A randomized controlled trial
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2002
Evaluation of the effectiveness of professionally guided self-care for people with multiple sclerosis living in the community: A randomized controlled trial
Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the ef”cacy of a patient-focused professionally guided self-care programme for the management of multiple sclerosis (MS) in the community.
Design: This was a single-blind randomized controlled trial.
Setting: The study was conducted with people with MS living in the community.
Participants: Two hundred and seventy-eight people with MS were invited to take part in the study. One hundred and eighty-nine people consented to take part (68%). Of these 183 began the study and 169 (92.3%) completed it. Seventy-three individuals were in the intervention group and 96 were in the control group.
Intervention: The intervention comprised discussion of self-care based on client priorities, using an information booklet about self-care.
Main outcome measures: These included the Barthel Index, a measure of mobility, the SF-36, and the Standard Day Dependency Record (SDDR) which measures the need for assistance with daily activities. Assessments were conducted at baseline and again six months later.
Results: Changes in health status were small. However, at follow-up the intervention group had better SF-36 health scores, in mental health (p = 0.04), and vitality (p = 0.05) and considered help with daily activities to be less essential, as measured by the SDDR (p = 0.04), than the control group. Participants in the intervention group had maintained levels of independence at follow-up (p = 0.62) while the control group showed a signi”cant decrease in independence (p = 0.001).
Conclusion: This intervention could be a useful aid for health professionals who are supporting people with MS living in the community.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Minden SL. Neuropsychiatric aspects of multiple sclerosis. Curr Opin Psychiatry1996; 9(1): 93–97.
2.
Freeman J, Johnson J, Rollinson S, Thompson A, Hatch J. Standards of healthcare for people with MS. London: The MS Society, The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery.
3.
Holmes J, Madgewick T, Bates D. The cost of multiple sclerosis. Br J Med Econ1995; 8: 181–193.
4.
Robinson I, Hunter M, Neilson S. A dispatch from the frontline: The views of people with multiple sclerosis about their needs: a qualitative approach. A report for the MS Society. London; MS Society, 1996.
5.
Kersten P, McLellan DL, Gross-Paju, K et al. A questionnaire assessment of unmet needs for rehabilitation services and resources for people with multiple sclerosis: results of a pilot survey in ” ve European countries. Clin Rehabil2000; 14: 42–49.
6.
O'Hara L, De Souza LH, Ide L. A delphi study of self-care in a community population of people with multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil2000; 14: 62–71.
7.
Sibley WA. Therapeutic claims in MS, fourth edition. New York: Demos Publications, 1996.
8.
McLaughlin J, Zeeberg I. Self-care and multiple sclerosis: a view from two cultures. Soc Sci Med1993; 37: 315–329.
9.
De Souza LH. Multiple sclerosis: approaches to management. London: Chapman and Hall, 1990.
10.
Hanley B. Involvement works. The 2nd Report of the Standing Group on Consumers in N.H.S. Research (NHSE). Winchester: Crown Copyright, 1999.
11.
Gompertz P, Pound P, Ebrahim S. A postal version of the Barthel Index. Clin Rehabil1994; 8: 233–239.
12.
De Souza L. The development of a scale of the Guttman Type for the assessment of mobility disability in multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil1999; 13: 476–481.
13.
SF-36 Health Survey: Scoring manual for English language adaptations. Boston: Medical Outcomes Trust, 1994.
14.
Lawson A, Robinson I, Bakes C. Problems in evaluating the consequences of disabling illness: the case of multiple sclerosis. Psychol Med1985; 15: 555–579.
15.
Di Fabio RP, Choi T, Soderberg J, Hansen CR. Health related quality of life for patients with progressive multiple sclerosis: In‘ uence of rehabilitation. Phys Ther1998; 77: 1074–1016.
16.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1997.
17.
Bland JM, Altman DG Multiple signi” cance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ1995; 310: 170–170.
18.
Garrett AM, Ruta DA, Abdulla MI, Buckingham JK, Russell IT. The SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS. BMJ1993; 306: 1440–1444.
19.
Freeman JA, Langdon DW, Hobart JC, Thompson AJ. Inpatient rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: Do the bene” ts carry over into the community?Neurology1999; 52: 50–56.
20.
Fisk JD, Pontefract A, Ritvo PG, Archibald CJ, Murray TJ. The impact of fatigue on persons with multiple sclerosis. Can J Neurol Sci1994; 21: 9–14.
21.
Freeman JA, Langdon DW, Hobart JC, Thompson AJ. The impact of inpatient rehabilitation on progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol1997; 42: 236–244.
22.
Solari A, Filippini G, Gasco P et al. Physical rehabilitation has a positive effect on disability in multiple sclerosis patients. Neurology1999; 52: 57–62.
23.
Ritvo PG, Fisk JD, Archibald CJ, Murray TJ, Field C. Psychosocial and neurological predictors of mental health in multiple sclerosis patients. J Clin Epidemiol1996; 49(4): 467–472
24.
Rao SM. Neuropsychology of multiple sclerosis. Curr Opin Neurol1995; 8: 216–220.
