4.3 Article

Longer term effectiveness of inpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation on health-related quality of life in MS patients: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial - The Danish MS Hospitals Rehabilitation Study

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 340-349

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458517735188

Keywords

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation; rehabilitation; multiple sclerosis; quality of life; inpatient; randomized controlled trial; pragmatic clinical trial

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: There is insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of MS patients. Objectives: To evaluate the longer term effectiveness of inpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation on the HRQoL of MS patients. Methods: The study was a two-hospital, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial with a 6-month follow-up. Patients aged 18-65 years with MS and Expanded Disability Status Scale scores <= 7.5 were randomly assigned (1:1) to 4 weeks of inpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation (20 days of scheduled rehabilitation) or 6 months on a wait list. The outcome measures were Functional Assessment in Multiple Sclerosis (FAMS), Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29), EQ-5D-5L and 15D. Results: We randomized 213 patients to the wait-list control group and 214 patients to the treatment group. Trends in favour of the treatment group were observed across all measures. However, the difference was significant in only two of the six measures. The treatment effect was -2.7 (95% CI: -5.6 to (-0.1)), p = 0.046) for the MSIS-29 Psychological and 0.017 (95% CI: 0.005-0.030, p = 0.008) for the 15D. FAMS, which we used to calculate the sample size, was not significant. Conclusion: The results indicated that inpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation is effective in improving the HRQoL of MS patients after 6 months.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available