Objective: To determine whether there were any differences in the outcomes of individuals with multiple sclerosis who attended all six sessions of an energy conservation education programme compared with people who missed a session and received a self-study module.
Design: Secondary analysis of data from two naturally occurring groups emerging from a randomized control trial-compliers who received the intervention as intended (group 1) and noncompliers who received a modified intervention with self-study modules (group 2).
Setting: Community settings in Chicago, Illinois and Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Participants: Ninety-two community-dwelling people with multiple sclerosis who were participating in an energy conservation education programme.
Intervention: Energy conservation education groups based on the ‘Managing Fatigue’ programme, which were facilitated by an occupational therapist. Self-study modules were sent to participants who missed a session.
Outcome measures: Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS), Self-Efficacy for Performing Energy Conservation Strategies Assessment, Energy Conservation Strategies Survey (ECSS), six subscales from the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36).
Results: When comparing individuals who attended all six sessions with individuals who missed one or more sessions and received a self-study module, no significant differences were found after adjusting for multiple comparisons.
Conclusions: Participants who used the self-study modules because they missed sessions of the Managing Fatigue programme experienced benefits from the course similar to those experienced by participants who fully complied with the intervention as intended. A new prospective study to validate the findings of this secondary analysis is required.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Krupp LB Mechanisms, measurement and management of fatigue in multiple sclerosis. In: Multiple sclerosis: clinical challenges and controversies. London: Martin Dunitz, 1997: 283-294.
2.
2 Fisk JD, Pontefract A, Ritvo PG, Archibald CJ, Murray TJ. The impact of fatigue on patients with multiple sclerosis. Can J Neurol Sci1994; 21:9-14.
3.
3 Mathiowetz V, Matuska KM, Murphy ME. Efficacy of an energy conservation course for persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2001; 82: 449-456.
4.
4 Welham L. Occupational therapy for fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis. Br J Occup Ther1995; 58: 507-509.
5.
5 Punwar AJ Occupational therapy principles and practice, second edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1994.
6.
6 Multiple Sclerosis Council for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Fatigue and multiple sclerosis: evidence-based management strategies for fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Washington, DC: Paralyzed Veterans of America, 1998.
7.
7 Ward N, Winters S. Results of a fatigue management programme in multiple sclerosis. Br J Nurs2003; 12: 1075-1080.
8.
8 Kinkel RPFatigue in multiple sclerosis: reducing the impact through comprehensive management. Int J MS Care2000; 2:3-10.
9.
9 Packer TL, Brink NSauriol A. Managing fatigue: a six-week course for energy conservation. Tucson, AZ: Therapy Skill Builders, 1995.
10.
10 Mathiowetz V, Finlayson M, Matuska K, Chen H, Lou P. Randomized controlled trial of an energy conservation for persons with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler (in press).
11.
11 Ware JE, Snow K, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 health manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993.
12.
12 Little RJA, Yau L. Intent-to-treat analysis for longitudinal studies with drop-out. Biometrics1996; 52: 1324-1333.
13.
13 SAS Institute Inc.SAS guide for personal computers, version 8.0. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 2000
14.
14 Adler PK, Rawlinson M, Crabtree KHallburg JC. Effectiveness of teaching methods for renal patients. AANNT J1983; 10:9-16.
15.
15 Johnston JM, Jansen GR, Anderson J, Kendall P. Comparison of group diet instruction to a self-directed education program for cholesterol reduction. J Nutr Educ1994; 26: 140-145.
