BACKGROUND: Mood problems affect many people with multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of a group treatment based on cognitive behavioural principles. METHODS: People with MS were screened on the General Health Questionnaire 12 (GHQ-12) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD). Those identified with low mood were invited to take part in a randomized trial comparing the effect of attending an adjustment group with a waiting list control. Patients allocated to the adjustment group received six 2 h group treatment sessions. Outcomes were assessed 4 and 8 months after randomization, blind to group allocation. RESULTS: Of the 311 patients identified, 221 (71%) met the criteria for low mood and 151 (68%) agreed to take part. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to compare the two groups, correcting for baseline mood and disability. At 4 months, group allocation alone was a significant predictor of the primary outcome measure, the GHQ-12. At 8 months, group allocation alone was no longer a significant predictor for GHQ-12 scores, but it was when baseline GHQ-12 and Guy's Neurological Disability Scale scores were controlled for. Comparison of the area under the curve revealed significant differences between the groups for GHQ-12 (p = 0.003), HAD Anxiety (p = 0.013), HAD Depression (p = 0.004), Beck Depression Inventory (p = 0.001), MS Self-efficacy (p = 0.037) and MS Impact Scale Psychological (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving treatment were less distressed and had less depression and anxiety. There was some evidence of improved self-efficacy and a reduction of the impact of MS on people's lives.
BACKGROUND: Mood problems affect many people with multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of a group treatment based on cognitive behavioural principles. METHODS: People with MS were screened on the General Health Questionnaire 12 (GHQ-12) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD). Those identified with low mood were invited to take part in a randomized trial comparing the effect of attending an adjustment group with a waiting list control. Patients allocated to the adjustment group received six 2 h group treatment sessions. Outcomes were assessed 4 and 8 months after randomization, blind to group allocation. RESULTS: Of the 311 patients identified, 221 (71%) met the criteria for low mood and 151 (68%) agreed to take part. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to compare the two groups, correcting for baseline mood and disability. At 4 months, group allocation alone was a significant predictor of the primary outcome measure, the GHQ-12. At 8 months, group allocation alone was no longer a significant predictor for GHQ-12 scores, but it was when baseline GHQ-12 and Guy's Neurological Disability Scale scores were controlled for. Comparison of the area under the curve revealed significant differences between the groups for GHQ-12 (p = 0.003), HAD Anxiety (p = 0.013), HAD Depression (p = 0.004), Beck Depression Inventory (p = 0.001), MS Self-efficacy (p = 0.037) and MS Impact Scale Psychological (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving treatment were less distressed and had less depression and anxiety. There was some evidence of improved self-efficacy and a reduction of the impact of MS on people's lives.
Authors: Nadina B Lincoln; Lucy E Bradshaw; Cris S Constantinescu; Florence Day; Avril Er Drummond; Deborah Fitzsimmons; Shaun Harris; Alan A Montgomery; Roshan das Nair Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Aaron P Turner; Kevin N Alschuler; Abbey J Hughes; Meghan Beier; Jodie K Haselkorn; Alicia P Sloan; Dawn M Ehde Journal: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 5.081
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: Leeanne Nicklas; Mairi Albiston; Martin Dunbar; Alan Gillies; Jennifer Hislop; Helen Moffat; Judy Thomson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Shirley A Thomas; Marion F Walker; Jamie A Macniven; Helen Haworth; Nadina B Lincoln Journal: Clin Rehabil Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 3.477