OBJECTIVES: To document mood, self-efficacy, and resiliency in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) following a brief group psychological intervention, and to examine whether benefits were greater than those derived from provision of education or group social interaction. DESIGN: A randomized controlled intervention trial assessing outcomes at five time points over a 1-year follow-up. METHODS:Participants with MS were assigned to one of three groups: one receiving brief group psychological intervention (PG) comprising three 90 minute cognitive behavioural sessions supported by an Information Booklet dealing with mental and emotional issues relating to MS; a group provided only with educational material - the information booklet group (IBG); and a group who not only received the booklet but also participated in non-structured social discussion (SDG) sessions similar in length and number to PG participants. Outcomes were documented using questionnaires. RESULTS: Outcomes were assessed using area under the curve (AUC) analysis: a summary measure that considers individual changes serially over time to provide a more meaningful picture than the one based on single time points. Ninety participants were followed up over the 12-month post-intervention, and their data are included in the analysis. Analyses indicated benefits in all outcome dimensions for the psychotherapeutic (PG) and social discussion groups (SDG) relative to the IBG group, but no differences between PG and SDG. CONCLUSION: The study indicates benefits from psychosocial intervention compared with bibliotherapy, with some additional benefit from psychological intervention compared with a social discussion group. Results suggest that much of the benefit may derive from non-specific therapeutic components. Without psychosocial intervention, the psychological status of people with MS worsened over time.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To document mood, self-efficacy, and resiliency in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) following a brief group psychological intervention, and to examine whether benefits were greater than those derived from provision of education or group social interaction. DESIGN: A randomized controlled intervention trial assessing outcomes at five time points over a 1-year follow-up. METHODS:Participants with MS were assigned to one of three groups: one receiving brief group psychological intervention (PG) comprising three 90 minute cognitive behavioural sessions supported by an Information Booklet dealing with mental and emotional issues relating to MS; a group provided only with educational material - the information booklet group (IBG); and a group who not only received the booklet but also participated in non-structured social discussion (SDG) sessions similar in length and number to PGparticipants. Outcomes were documented using questionnaires. RESULTS: Outcomes were assessed using area under the curve (AUC) analysis: a summary measure that considers individual changes serially over time to provide a more meaningful picture than the one based on single time points. Ninety participants were followed up over the 12-month post-intervention, and their data are included in the analysis. Analyses indicated benefits in all outcome dimensions for the psychotherapeutic (PG) and social discussion groups (SDG) relative to the IBG group, but no differences between PG and SDG. CONCLUSION: The study indicates benefits from psychosocial intervention compared with bibliotherapy, with some additional benefit from psychological intervention compared with a social discussion group. Results suggest that much of the benefit may derive from non-specific therapeutic components. Without psychosocial intervention, the psychological status of people with MS worsened over time.
Authors: Alison M Mackay; Robert Buckingham; Raymond S Schwartz; Suzanne Hodgkinson; Roy G Beran; Dennis J Cordato Journal: Int J MS Care Date: 2015 May-Jun
Authors: Manpreet Blessin; Sophie Lehmann; Angela M Kunzler; Rolf van Dick; Klaus Lieb Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-05 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Peter Joseph Jongen; Marco Heerings; Rob Ruimschotel; Astrid Hussaarts; Lotte Duyverman; Anneke van der Zande; Joyce Valkenburg-Vissers; Maarten van Droffelaar; Wim Lemmens; Rogier Donders; Leo H Visser Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2016-07-29