| Literature DB >> 27372714 |
Lizanne Eva van den Akker1,2,3, Heleen Beckerman4,5,6, Emma Hubertine Collette7, Gijs Bleijenberg8, Joost Dekker4,5, Hans Knoop8, Vincent de Groot4,5,6.
Abstract
To determine the relationship between appraisal and societal participation in fatigued patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS), and whether this relation is mediated by coping styles. 265 severely-fatigued MS patients. Appraisal, a latent construct, was created from the General Self-Efficacy Scale and the helplessness and acceptance subscales of the Illness Cognition Questionnaire. Coping styles were assessed using the Coping Inventory Stressful Situations (CISS21) and societal participation was assessed using the Impact on Participation and Autonomy. A multiple mediator model was developed and tested by structural equation modeling on cross-sectional data. We corrected for confounding by disease-related factors. Mediation was determined using a product-of-coefficients approach. A significant relationship existed between appraisal and participation (β = 0.21, 95 % CI 0.04-0.39). The pathways via coping styles were not significant. In patients with severe MS-related fatigue, appraisal and societal participation show a positive relationship that is not mediated by coping styles.Entities:
Keywords: Appraisal; Coping; Multiple mediator model; Multiple sclerosis; Participation
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27372714 PMCID: PMC5012251 DOI: 10.1007/s10865-016-9762-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Behav Med ISSN: 0160-7715
Fig. 1Multiple mediation model of appraisal (independent variable), coping styles (mediating variables) and societal participation (dependent variable). For clarity, the MS-related confounding factors and observed variables used for the latent variables are not displayed
Socio-demographic and disease-related characteristics of 265 patients with MS
| Characteristic | n |
|
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 67 | 25.3 |
| Female | 198 | 74.7 |
| Age in years (mean, SD) | 46.7 | 10.5 |
| Type of MS | ||
| Relapsing remitting | 190 | 71.7 |
| Primary progressive | 24 | 9.1 |
| Secondary progressive | 33 | 12.5 |
| Unknown | 18 | 6.8 |
| Level of education* | ||
| Low | 138 | 52.1 |
| Medium | 102 | 38.5 |
| High | 23 | 8.7 |
| Unknown | 2 | 0.8 |
| Living situation | ||
| Living with partner | 205 | 77.4 |
| Living without partner | 60 | 22.6 |
| Employment status | ||
| Full-time | 28 | 10.6 |
| Part-time | 99 | 37.4 |
| Disability pension | 46 | 46.5 |
| Unemployed | 110 | 41.5 |
| Disability pension | 88 | 80 |
| (Early) retirement | 14 | 5.3 |
| Study | 11 | 4.2 |
| Unknown | 3 | 1.1 |
* Categories for level of education were determined using the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) guidelines
Mean (SD) scores, ranges, possible ranges and interpretation of the variables included in the theoretical model
| Questionnaire | n | Mean (SD) | Range | Possible range | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructs | |||||
|
| |||||
| GSES | n = 262 | 30.5 (4.7) | 11–40 | 10–40 | Higher values indicate more self-efficacy |
| ICQ-helplessness | n = 263 | 16.9 (3.3) | 9–23 | 6–24 | Higher values indicate less helplessnessa |
| ICQ-acceptation | n = 263 | 15.1 (3.8) | 6–24 | 6–24 | Higher values indicate more acceptation |
|
| |||||
| IPA autonomy indoors | n = 263 | 3.2 (0.6) | 1–4 | 0–4 | Higher values indicate better participationa |
| IPA family role | n = 263 | 2.5 (0.7) | 0.7–4 | 0–4 | |
| IPA autonomy outdoors | n = 263 | 2.3 (0.7) | 0.4–4 | 0–4 | |
| IPA social life and relationships | n = 263 | 3.0 (0.5) | 1.1–4 | 0–4 | |
| IPA work and education | n = 253 | 2.1 (0.8) | 0–4 | 0–4 | |
|
| |||||
| CIS20r-fatigue | n = 264 | 43.4 (7.6) | 14–56b | 8–56 | Higher values indicate more fatigue |
| CIS20r-concentration | n = 264 | 20.9 (7.6) | 5–35 | 5–35 | Higher values indicate more concentration problems |
| EDSS median, (ICQ1–ICQ3) | n = 255 | 2.5 (2.0–3.5) | 0–6c | 0–10 | Higher scores indicate more disease severity |
| SF36-physical functioning | n = 265 | 59.0 (23.9) | 0–100 | 0–100 | Higher values indicate better physical functioning |
| SF36-mental health | n = 262 | 67.1 (13.2) | 24–92 | 0–100 | Higher values indicate better mental health |
|
| |||||
| CISS21 task-oriented | n = 263 | 24.3 (4.8) | 7–35 | 7–35 | Higher values indicate a stronger tendency to a certain coping style |
| CISS21 emotion-oriented | n = 263 | 18.0 (6.1) | 7–31 | 7–35 | |
| CISS21 avoidance-oriented | n = 264 | 18.7 (4.8) | 7–31 | 7–35 |
CIS20r, Checklist Individual Strength; CISS21, Coping Inventory Stressful Situations; EDSS, Expanded Disability Status Scale; GSES, General Self-Efficacy Scale; ICQ, Illness Cognition Questionnaire; ICQ1–3, Interquartile; IPA, Impact on Participation and Autonomy; SF36, Short Form 36
aScores are reversed for interpretation
bCIS20r fatigue enrollment scores differed incidentally from baseline scores used in this article; CIS20r-fatigue = 14 appeared in 1 participant
cUsed as an inclusion criterion; EDSS 0–6
Results per step of the mediation analyses
| Construct latent variables | R2 | Adding confounders | R2 | Adding mediators | R2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β (95 %CI) | β (95 %CI) | β (95 %CI) | |||||
| 1. Constructed latent variables | |||||||
| Appraisala | GSES | 0.59 | 0.61 | 0.64 | |||
| ICQ-helplessness | 0.65 | 0.55 | 0.58 | ||||
| ICQ-acceptation | 0.67 | 0.74 | 0.62 | ||||
| Participationa | Autonomy indoors | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.70 | |||
| Family role | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | ||||
| Autonomy outdoors | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.80 | ||||
| Social life and relationships | 0.65 | 0.61 | 0.62 | ||||
| Work and education | 0.50 | 0.47 | 0.49 | ||||
| 2. Relation appraisal and participation |
| 0.27 | |||||
| 3. Adjustment for confoundersb | |||||||
| Confounding on the relation of appraisal and participation | CIS20r-fatigue | −0.18 | −0.12 | ||||
| CIS20r-concentration | −0.17 | −0.15 | |||||
| EDSS | −0.06 | −0.04 | |||||
| SF36-physical functioning | 0.37 | 0.32 | |||||
| SF36-mental health | 0.10 | −0.01 | |||||
| 4. Adjusted relation appraisal and participation |
| 0.37 | |||||
| 5. Multiple mediation | |||||||
| 5a. Appraisal-coping | Task-oriented | 0.39 | |||||
| Emotion-oriented | −0.63 | ||||||
| Avoidance-oriented | −0.11 | ||||||
| 5b. Coping- participation | Task-oriented | −0.13 | |||||
| Emotion-oriented | −0.63 | ||||||
| Avoidance-oriented | −0.11 | ||||||
| 5a * 5b Indirect relations | Appraisal-task-oriented coping-participation | −0.08 | |||||
| Appraisal-emotion-oriented coping-participation | −0.03 | ||||||
| Appraisal-avoidance-oriented coping-participation | −0.01 | ||||||
| 6. Final result multiple mediation model | |||||||
| Total indirect | −0.12 | ||||||
| Direct relation appraisal and participation |
| 0.40 | |||||
CI confidence interval
aResults are standardized factor loadings
bThe relations of the five confounders with the three coping styles (i.e. 15 relations) are not displayed for clarity
Fig. 2Final Multiple Mediator Model: relation of appraisal and societal participation, mediated with task-oriented, emotion-oriented and avoidance-oriented coping style. Adjustments for confounding by MS-related disability are not presented in the figure. *p ≤ 0.05; **p = 0.001