Objective: A pilot study performed within Stockholm County to evaluate the feasibility of collecting data using a comprehensive evaluation package administered in the home environment to assess impairment, disability and handicap in order to explore the consequences of multiple sclerosis (MS). Design: Home visits to 26 purposefully selected MS patients with different levels of disability, in both ordinary and sheltered living. The comprehensive evaluation package included: biographical data, Mini-Mental State Examination, Free Recall and Recognition of 12 Random Words Test, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, Beck Depression Index, Lindmark Motor Capacity Assessment, time to walk 10 metres, Nine-hole Peg Test, Barthel ADL Index, Katz Extended ADL Index, Frenchay Activities Index, Sickness Impact Profile and frequency of falls and injurious falls.
Results: This pilot study demonstrates that the proposed methods can be used to evaluate MS patients differing in levels of disability and forms of living. The data collection method, based on home visits, was well accepted by the patients, their spouses and salaried personal assistants and could be performed within 2–21/2 hours.
Conclusions: The evaluation package used in this pilot study is suitable for use in population-based studies and it should provide comprehensive information on the impact and consequences of MS on patients, and should contribute to the identification of areas in which the provision of rehabilitation and health care services needs to be improved.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ebers GC, Paty DW. Natural history studies and applications to clinical trials. In: Paty DW, Ebers GC eds. Multiple sclerosis, first edition. Philadelphia: FA Davis Company, 1998: 199–202.
2.
Rodriguez M, Siva A, Ward J et al. Impairment, disability and handicap in multiple sclerosis: a population-based study in Olmstead County, MN. Neurology1994; 44: 28–33.
3.
Midgard R, Riise T, Nyland H. Impairment, disability and handicap in multiple sclerosis. A cross-sectional study in an incident cohort in Møre and Romsdal County, Norway. J Neurol1996; 243: 337–344.
4.
Goodkin DS, and the Northern California MS study group. Survey of multiple sclerosis in northern California. Multiple Sclerosis1999; 5: 78–88.
5.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Impairments, Disability and Handicaps (ICIDH): a manual of classification. Geneva: WHO, 1980.
6.
Thompson AJ. Measuring handicap in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis1999; 5: 260–262.
7.
Rudick R, Antel J, Confavreux C et al. Recommendations from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society clinical outcomes assessment task force. Ann Neurol1997; 42: 379–382.
8.
Gottberg K, Einarsson U, Fredrikson S, von Koch L, Widén Holmqvist L. Multiple sclerosis in Stockhom County. A pilot study of utilization of health-care resources, patient satisfaction with care and impact on family caregivers. Acta Neurol Scand2001; 106: 241–247.
9.
Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Freeman JA et al. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Kurtzke expanded disability status scale (EDSS) in multiple sclerosis (abstract). J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1997; 62: 212–212.
10.
Folstein MF, Folstein SF, McHugh PR. Mini-Mental-state: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res1975; 12: 189–198.
11.
Beatty WW, Goodkin DE. Screening for cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol1990; 47: 297–301.
12.
Wahlin Å. Episodic memory functioning in very old age. Individual differences and utilization of cognitive support. Dissertation, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, 1996.
13.
Smith A. Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). In: Lezak MD ed. Neuropsychological assessment, third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995: 379–381.
14.
Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M, Mock J, Erbaugh J. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry1961; 4: 561–571.
15.
Whitlock FA, Suskind MM: Depression as a major symptom of multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1980; 43: 861–865.
16.
Lindmark B, Hamrin E. Evaluation of functional capacity after stroke as a basis for active intervention. Presentation of a modified chart for motor capacity assessment and its reliability. Scand J Rehabil Med1988; 20: 103–109.
17.
Wade DT. Measurements in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
18.
Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Md State Med J1965; 14: 61–65.
19.
Hulter Åsberg K, Sonn U. The cumulative structure of personal and instrumental ADL. Scand J Rehabil Med1989; 21: 171–177.
20.
Wade D, Legh-Smith L, Langton Hewer R. Social activities after stroke: measurement and natural history using Frenchay Activities Index. Int Rehabil Med1985; 7: 176–181.
21.
Schuurman PR, Bosch DA, Bossuyt PM et al. A comparison of continuous stimulation and thalamotomy for suppression of severe tremor. N Engl J Med2000; 342: 461–468.
22.
Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care1981; 19: 787–805.
23.
Petajan JH, Gappmaier E, White AT, Spencer MK, Mino L, Hicks RW. Impact of aerobic training on fitness and quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol1996; 39: 432–441.
24.
Tinetti ME, Speechley M, Ginter SF. Risk factors for falls among elderly persons living in the community. N Engl J Med1988; 319: 1701–1707.
25.
Nelson LM, Franklin GM, Hamman RF, Boteler DC, Baum HM, Burks JS. Referral bias in multiple sclerosis research. J Clin Epidemiol1988; 41: 187–192.
26.
Souza LH. Ashburn A. Assessment of motor function in people with multiple sclerosis. Physiother Res Int1996; 1: 98–111.
27.
Van der Putten JJ, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the functional independence measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1999; 66: 480–484.
28.
Turnbull JC, Kersten P, Habib M, McLellen L, Mullee MA, George S. Validation of the Frenchay Activities Index in a general population aged 16 years and older. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2000; 81: 1034–1038.
