Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2020 Jan;24(4):1–182. doi: 10.3310/hta24040

Group cognitive rehabilitation to reduce the psychological impact of multiple sclerosis on quality of life: the CRAMMS RCT.

Nadina B Lincoln, Lucy E Bradshaw, Cris S Constantinescu, Florence Day, Avril Er Drummond, Deborah Fitzsimmons, Shaun Harris, Alan A Montgomery, Roshan das Nair
PMCID: PMC6983911  PMID: 31934845

Abstract

BACKGROUND

People with multiple sclerosis have problems with memory and attention. The effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation has not been established.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a cognitive rehabilitation programme for people with multiple sclerosis.

DESIGN

This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in which participants were randomised in a ratio of 6 : 5 to receive cognitive rehabilitation plus usual care or usual care alone. Participants were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation.

SETTING

The trial was set in hospital neurology clinics and community services.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were people with multiple sclerosis who had cognitive problems, were aged 18-69 years, could travel to attend group sessions and gave informed consent.

INTERVENTION

The intervention was a group cognitive rehabilitation programme delivered weekly by an assistant psychologist to between four and six participants for 10 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included results from the Everyday Memory Questionnaire, the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version and a service use questionnaire from participants, and the Everyday Memory Questionnaire - relative version and the Modified Carer Strain Index from a relative or friend of the participant.

RESULTS

Of the 449 participants randomised, 245 were allocated to cognitive rehabilitation (intervention group) and 204 were allocated to usual care (control group). Of these, 214 in the intervention group and 173 in the control group were included in the primary analysis. There was no clinically important difference in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale score between the two groups at the 12-month follow-up (adjusted difference in means -0.6, 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 0.3; p = 0.20). There were no important differences between the groups in relation to cognitive abilities, fatigue, employment, or carer strain at follow-up. However, there were differences, although small, between the groups in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale score at 6 months (adjusted difference in means -0.9, 95% confidence interval -1.7 to -0.1; p = 0.03) and in everyday memory on the Everyday Memory Questionnaire as reported by participants at 6 (adjusted difference in means -5.3, 95% confidence interval -8.7 to -1.9) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -4.4, 95% confidence interval -7.8 to -0.9) and by relatives at 6 (adjusted difference in means -5.4, 95% confidence interval -9.1 to -1.7) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -5.5, 95% confidence interval -9.6 to -1.5) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. There were also differences in mood on the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire at 6 (adjusted difference in means -3.4, 95% confidence interval -5.9 to -0.8) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -3.4, 95% confidence interval -6.2 to -0.6) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. A qualitative analysis indicated perceived benefits of the intervention. There was no evidence of a difference in costs (adjusted difference in means -£574.93, 95% confidence interval -£1878.93 to £729.07) or quality-adjusted life-year gain (adjusted difference in means 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.02). No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported.

LIMITATIONS

The trial included a sample of participants who had relatively severe cognitive problems in daily life. The trial was not powered to perform subgroup analyses. Participants could not be blinded to treatment allocation.

CONCLUSIONS

This cognitive rehabilitation programme had no long-term benefits on quality of life for people with multiple sclerosis.

FUTURE WORK

Future research should evaluate the selection of those who may benefit from cognitive rehabilitation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09697576.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 4. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

Cognitive (or mental processing) problems, particularly those affecting memory and attention, are common in people with multiple sclerosis. Multiple sclerosis is a condition that affects the brain and causes nerve damage. Cognitive rehabilitation can involve: retraining cognitive skills, which are the core skills your brain uses to think, read, learn, remember, reason and concentrateteaching strategies to cope in daily life. Cognitive rehabilitation is rarely provided for people with multiple sclerosis. A trial was carried out to determine whether or not providing a group cognitive rehabilitation programme improved quality of life more than usual clinical care, which did not involve any cognitive rehabilitation. The effects on daily memory problems, mood, fatigue and employment were examined and also the cost-effectiveness of the treatment. A total of 449 people with multiple sclerosis took part in the trial. They all agreed to be part of the research trial, had cognitive problems, were aged 18–69 years and could travel to attend group sessions. Participants were then allocated to receive cognitive rehabilitation or not, on the basis of chance (i.e. randomly). All participants were followed up for 1 year. Although both groups showed no differences in quality of life after 1 year, those who received cognitive rehabilitation had fewer memory problems in daily life and reported better mood than those who received only their usual clinical care. There were no differences in their levels of fatigue or disability, or in employment status. The qualitative results indicated that participants found the intervention useful. Treatment cost slightly less than usual care but had modest benefits. Overall, the results suggest that there may be modest short-term benefits of cognitive rehabilitation, and future studies will consider how such benefits can be maintained and whether or not some people benefit more than others.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Mackenzie IS, Morant SV, Bloomfield GA, MacDonald TM, O’Riordan J. Incidence and prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the UK 1990–2010: a descriptive study in the General Practice Research Database. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2014;85:76–84. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2013-305450 doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2013-305450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Dutta R, Trapp BD. Mechanisms of neuronal dysfunction and degeneration in multiple sclerosis. Prog Neurobiol 2011;93:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2010.09.005 doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2010.09.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  3. Amato MP, Langdon D, Montalban X, Benedict RH, DeLuca J, Krupp LB, et al. Treatment of cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: position paper. J Neurol 2013;260:1452–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-012-6678-0 doi: 10.1007/s00415-012-6678-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Winkelmann A, Engel C, Apel A, Zettl UK. Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2007;254(Suppl. 2):II35–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-007-2010-9 doi: 10.1007/s00415-007-2010-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Chiaravalloti ND, DeLuca J. Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 2008;7:1139–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70259-X doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70259-X. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Fischer M, Kunkel A, Bublak P, Faiss JH, Hoffmann F, Sailer M, et al. How reliable is the classification of cognitive impairment across different criteria in early and late stages of multiple sclerosis? J Neurol Sci 2014;343:91–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2014.05.042 doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2014.05.042. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Calabrese P. Neuropsychology of multiple sclerosis – an overview. J Neurol 2006;253(Suppl. 1):I10–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-006-1103-1 doi: 10.1007/s00415-006-1103-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Costa SL, Genova HM, DeLuca J, Chiaravalloti ND. Information processing speed in multiple sclerosis: past, present, and future. Mult Scler 2017;23:772–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458516645869 doi: 10.1177/1352458516645869. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Rouleau I, Dagenais E, Tremblay A, Demers M, Roger É, Jobin C, Duquette P. Prospective memory impairment in multiple sclerosis: a review. Clin Neuropsychol 2018;32:922–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1361473 doi: 10.1080/13854046.2017.1361473. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Hämäläinen P, Rosti-Otajärvi E. Cognitive impairment in MS: rehabilitation approaches. Acta Neurol Scand 2016;134(Suppl. 200):8–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12650 doi: 10.1111/ane.12650. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Kalmar JH, Gaudino EA, Moore NB, Halper J, Deluca J. The relationship between cognitive deficits and everyday functional activities in multiple sclerosis. Neuropsychology 2008;22:442–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.22.4.442 doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.22.4.442. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Goverover Y, Genova HM, Hillary FG, DeLuca J. The relationship between neuropsychological measures and the Timed Instrumental Activities of Daily Living task in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2007;13:636–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458506072984 doi: 10.1177/1352458506072984. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Goverover Y, Chiaravalloti N, DeLuca J. Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS) and performance of everyday life tasks: actual reality. Mult Scler 2016;22:544–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458515593637 doi: 10.1177/1352458515593637. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Shevil E, Finlayson M. Pilot study of a cognitive intervention program for persons with multiple sclerosis. Health Educ Res 2010;25:41–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyp037 doi: 10.1093/her/cyp037. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Morrow SA, Drake A, Zivadinov R, Munschauer F, Weinstock-Guttman B, Benedict RH. Predicting loss of employment over three years in multiple sclerosis: clinically meaningful cognitive decline. Clin Neuropsychol 2010;24:1131–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2010.511272 doi: 10.1080/13854046.2010.511272. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Campbell J, Rashid W, Cercignani M, Langdon D. Cognitive impairment among patients with multiple sclerosis: associations with employment and quality of life. Postgrad Med J 2016;93:143–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-134071 doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-134071. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Honan CA, Brown RF, Batchelor J. Perceived cognitive difficulties and cognitive test performance as predictors of employment outcomes in people with multiple sclerosis. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2015;21:156–68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617715000053 doi: 10.1017/S1355617715000053. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Raggi A, Covelli V, Schiavolin S, Scaratti C, Leonardi M, Willems M. Work-related problems in multiple sclerosis: a literature review on its associates and determinants. Disabil Rehabil 2016;38:936–44. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2015.1070295 doi: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1070295. [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. Benito-León J, Morales JM, Rivera-Navarro J. Health-related quality of life and its relationship to cognitive and emotional functioning in multiple sclerosis patients. Eur J Neurol 2002;9:497–502. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-1331.2002.00450.x doi: 10.1046/j.1468-1331.2002.00450.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Samartzis L, Gavala E, Zoukos Y, Aspiotis A, Thomaides T. Perceived cognitive decline in multiple sclerosis impacts quality of life independently of depression. Rehabil Res Pract 2014;2014:128751. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/128751 doi: 10.1155/2014/128751. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  21. Van Schependom J, D’hooghe MB, De Schepper M, Cleynhens K, D’hooge M, Haelewyck MC, et al. Relative contribution of cognitive and physical disability components to quality of life in MS. J Neurol Sci 2014;336:116–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2013.10.020 doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2013.10.020. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. Department of Health and Social Care. The National Service Framework for Long-term Conditions. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2005.
  23. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Multiple Sclerosis in Adults: Management. Clinical Guideline 186 [CG186]. London: NICE; 2014. [PubMed]
  24. Klein OA, das Nair R, Ablewhite J, Drummond A. Assessment and management of cognitive problems in people with multiple sclerosis: a national survey of clinical practice. Int J Clin Pract 2019;73:e13300. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13300. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. O’Brien AR, Chiaravalloti N, Goverover Y, Deluca J. Evidenced-based cognitive rehabilitation for persons with multiple sclerosis: a review of the literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:761–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.10.019 doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.10.019. [DOI] [PubMed]
  26. Goverover Y, Chiaravalloti ND, O’Brien AR, DeLuca J. Evidenced-based cognitive rehabilitation for persons with multiple sclerosis: an updated review of the literature from 2007 to 2016. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2018;99:390–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.07.021 doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.07.021. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. D’Amico E, Leone C, Hayrettin T, Patti F. Can we define a rehabilitation strategy for cognitive impairment in progressive multiple sclerosis? A critical appraisal. Mult Scler 2016;22:581–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458516632066 doi: 10.1177/1352458516632066. [DOI] [PubMed]
  28. Mitolo M, Venneri A, Wilkinson ID, Sharrack B. Cognitive rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. J Neurol Sci 2015;354:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2015.05.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2015.05.004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. das Nair R, Martin KJ, Lincoln NB. Memory rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;3:CD008754. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008754.pub3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008754.pub3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Magalhaes R, Alves J, Thomas RE, Chiaravalloti N, Goncalves OF, Petrosyan A, et al. Are cognitive interventions for multiple sclerosis effective and feasible? Restor Neurol Neurosci 2014;32:623–38. https://doi.org/10.3233/rnn-140388 doi: 10.3233/rnn-140388. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Rosti-Otajärvi EM, Hämäläinen PI. Neuropsychological rehabilitation for multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;2:CD009131. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009131.pub3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009131.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  32. Amato MP, Goretti B, Viterbo RG, Portaccio E, Niccolai C, Hakiki B, et al. Computer-assisted rehabilitation of attention in patients with multiple sclerosis: results of a randomized, double-blind trial. Mult Scler 2014;20:91–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458513501571 doi: 10.1177/1352458513501571. [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. Brissart H, Leroy M, Morele E, Baumann C, Spitz E, Debouverie M. Cognitive rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis. Neurocase 2013;19:553–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554794.2012.701644 doi: 10.1080/13554794.2012.701644. [DOI] [PubMed]
  34. Charvet LE, Yang J, Shaw MT, Sherman K, Haider L, Xu J, Krupp LB. Cognitive function in multiple sclerosis improves with telerehabilitation: results from a randomized controlled trial. PLOS ONE 2017;12:e0177177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177177 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  35. De Giglio L, De Luca F, Prosperini L, Borriello G, Bianchi V, Pantano P, Pozzilli C. A low-cost cognitive rehabilitation with a commercial video game improves sustained attention and executive functions in multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2015;29:453–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968314554623 doi: 10.1177/1545968314554623. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Gich J, Freixanet J, García R, Vilanova JC, Genís D, Silva Y, et al. A randomized, controlled, single-blind, 6-month pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of MS-Line!: a cognitive rehabilitation programme for patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2015;21:1332–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458515572405 doi: 10.1177/1352458515572405. [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. Pérez-Martín MY, González-Platas M, Eguía-Del Río P, Croissier-Elías C, Jiménez Sosa A. Efficacy of a short cognitive training program in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2017;13:245–52. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S124448 doi: 10.2147/NDT.S124448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  38. Shatil E, Metzer A, Horvitz O, Miller A. Home-based personalized cognitive training in MS patients: a study of adherence and cognitive performance. NeuroRehabilitation 2010;26:143–53. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-2010-0546 doi: 10.3233/NRE-2010-0546. [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. Solari A, Motta A, Mendozzi L, Pucci E, Forni M, Mancardi G, Pozzilli C, CRIMS Trial. Computer-aided retraining of memory and attention in people with multiple sclerosis: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial. J Neurol Sci 2004;222:99–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2004.04.027 doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2004.04.027. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Tesar N, Bandion K, Baumhackl U. Efficacy of a neuropsychological training programme for patients with multiple sclerosis – a randomised controlled trial. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2005;117:747–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-005-0470-4 doi: 10.1007/s00508-005-0470-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  41. Fink F, Rischkau E, Butt M, Klein J, Eling P, Hildebrandt H. Efficacy of an executive function intervention programme in MS: a placebo-controlled and pseudo-randomized trial. Mult Scler 2010;16:1148–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458510375440 doi: 10.1177/1352458510375440. [DOI] [PubMed]
  42. Hildebrandt H, Lanz M, Hahn HK, Hoffmann E, Schwarze B, Schwendemann G, Kraus JA. Cognitive training in MS: effects and relation to brain atrophy. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2007;25:33–43. [PubMed]
  43. Mattioli F, Flavia M, Stampatori C, Zanotti D, Parrinello G, Capra R. Efficacy and specificity of intensive cognitive rehabilitation of attention and executive functions in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 2010;288:101–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2009.09.024 doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2009.09.024. [DOI] [PubMed]
  44. Bonavita S, Sacco R, Della Corte M, Esposito S, Sparaco M, d’Ambrosio A, et al. Computer-aided cognitive rehabilitation improves cognitive performances and induces brain functional connectivity changes in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis patients: an exploratory study. J Neurol 2015;262:91–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-014-7528-z doi: 10.1007/s00415-014-7528-z. [DOI] [PubMed]
  45. Campbell J, Langdon D, Cercignani M, Rashid W. A randomised controlled trial of efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: a cognitive, behavioural, and MRI study. Neural Plast 2016;2016:4292585. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4292585 doi: 10.1155/2016/4292585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  46. Cerasa A, Gioia MC, Valentino P, Nisticò R, Chiriaco C, Pirritano D, et al. Computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation of attention deficits for multiple sclerosis: a randomized trial with fMRI correlates. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2013;27:284–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968312465194 doi: 10.1177/1545968312465194. [DOI] [PubMed]
  47. Filippi M, Riccitelli G, Mattioli F, Capra R, Stampatori C, Pagani E, et al. Multiple sclerosis: effects of cognitive rehabilitation on structural and functional MR imaging measures – an explorative study. Radiology 2012;262:932–40. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11111299 doi: 10.1148/radiol.11111299. [DOI] [PubMed]
  48. Parisi L, Rocca MA, Valsasina P, Panicari L, Mattioli F, Filippi M. Cognitive rehabilitation correlates with the functional connectivity of the anterior cingulate cortex in patients with multiple sclerosis. Brain Imaging Behav 2014;8:387–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-012-9160-9 doi: 10.1007/s11682-012-9160-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. Parisi L, Rocca MA, Mattioli F, Copetti M, Capra R, Valsasina P, et al. Changes of brain resting state functional connectivity predict the persistence of cognitive rehabilitation effects in patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2014;20:686–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458513505692 doi: 10.1177/1352458513505692. [DOI] [PubMed]
  50. Mattioli F, Stampatori C, Scarpazza C, Parrinello G, Capra R. Persistence of the effects of attention and executive functions intensive rehabilitation in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2012;1:168–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2012.06.004 doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2012.06.004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  51. Chiaravalloti ND, DeLuca J, Moore NB, Ricker JH. Treating learning impairments improves memory performance in multiple sclerosis: a randomized clinical trial. Mult Scler 2005;11:58–68. https://doi.org/10.1191/1352458505ms1118oa doi: 10.1191/1352458505ms1118oa. [DOI] [PubMed]
  52. Chiaravalloti ND, Moore NB, Nikelshpur OM, DeLuca J. An RCT to treat learning impairment in multiple sclerosis: the MEMREHAB trial. Neurology 2013;81:2066–72. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000437295.97946.a8 doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000437295.97946.a8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  53. Goverover Y, Chiaravalloti N, Genova H, DeLuca J. A randomized controlled trial to treat impaired learning and memory in multiple sclerosis: the self-GEN trial. Mult Scler 2018;24:1096–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458517709955 doi: 10.1177/1352458517709955. [DOI] [PubMed]
  54. Rilo O, Peña J, Ojeda N, Rodríguez-Antigüedad A, Mendibe-Bilbao M, Gómez-Gastiasoro A, et al. Integrative group-based cognitive rehabilitation efficacy in multiple sclerosis: a randomized clinical trial. Disabil Rehabil 2018;40:208–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1250168 doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1250168. [DOI] [PubMed]
  55. Brochet B. Functional training is a senseless strategy in MS cognitive rehabilitation: strategy training is the only useful approach – commentary. Mult Scler 2017;23:932–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458517699877 doi: 10.1177/1352458517699877. [DOI] [PubMed]
  56. Goodwin RA, Lincoln NB, das Nair R, Bateman A. Evaluation of NeuroPage as a memory aid for people with multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled trial [published online ahead of print March 20 2018]. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2018.1447973 doi: 10.1080/09602011.2018.1447973. [DOI] [PubMed]
  57. Stuifbergen AK, Becker H, Perez F, Morison J, Kullberg V, Todd A. A randomized controlled trial of a cognitive rehabilitation intervention for persons with multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil 2012;26:882–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215511434997 doi: 10.1177/0269215511434997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  58. Mantynen A, Rosti-Otajarvi E, Koivisto K, Lilja A, Huhtala H, Hamalainen P. Neuropsychological rehabilitation does not improve cognitive performance but reduces perceived cognitive deficits in patients with multiple sclerosis: a randomised, controlled, multi-centre trial. Mult Scler 2014;20:99–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458513494487 doi: 10.1177/1352458513494487. [DOI] [PubMed]
  59. das Nair R, Lincoln NB. Evaluation of Rehabilitation of Memory in Neurological Disabilities (ReMiND): a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2012;26:894–903. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215511435424 doi: 10.1177/0269215511435424. [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Carr SE, das Nair R, Schwartz AF, Lincoln NB. Group memory rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis: a feasibility randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2014;28:552–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215513512336 doi: 10.1177/0269215513512336. [DOI] [PubMed]
  61. das Nair R, Lincoln NB. The effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following neurological disabilities: a qualitative inquiry of patient perspectives. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2013;23:528–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.792290 doi: 10.1080/09602011.2013.792290. [DOI] [PubMed]
  62. Martin K-J, Lincoln N, das Nair R, Kneebone I. Group-based memory rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis: subgroup analysis of the ReMiND trial. Int J Ther Rehabil 2014;21:590–6. https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2014.21.12.590 doi: 10.12968/ijtr.2014.21.12.590. [DOI]
  63. Hulst HE, Langdon DW. Functional training is a senseless strategy in MS cognitive rehabilitation: strategy training is the only useful approach – NO. Mult Scler 2017;23:930–2. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458517692422 doi: 10.1177/1352458517692422. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  64. Hobart J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, Riazi A, Thompson A. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29) – a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain 2001;124:962–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/124.5.962 doi: 10.1093/brain/124.5.962. [DOI] [PubMed]
  65. Lincoln NB, das Nair R, Bradshaw L, Constantinescu CS, Drummond AE, Erven A, et al. Cognitive Rehabilitation for Attention and Memory in people with Multiple Sclerosis: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (CRAMMS). Trials 2015;16:556. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1016-3 doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-1016-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  66. Benedict RH, Munschauer F, Linn R, Miller C, Murphy E, Foley F, Jacobs L. Screening for multiple sclerosis cognitive impairment using a self-administered 15-item questionnaire. Mult Scler 2003;9:95–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1352458503ms861oa doi: 10.1191/1352458503ms861oa. [DOI] [PubMed]
  67. Sepulcre J, Vanotti S, Hernández R, Sandoval G, Cáceres F, Garcea O, Villoslada P. Cognitive impairment in patients with multiple sclerosis using the Brief Repeatable Battery-Neuropsychology test. Mult Scler 2006;12:187–95. https://doi.org/10.1191/1352458506ms1258oa doi: 10.1191/1352458506ms1258oa. [DOI] [PubMed]
  68. Rao SM, the Cognitive Function Study Group of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. A Manual for the Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests in Multiple Sclerosis. Milwaukee, WI: Medical College of Wisconsin; 1990.
  69. Benedict RH, Cox D, Thompson LL, Foley F, Weinstock-Guttman B, Munschauer F. Reliable screening for neuropsychological impairment in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2004;10:675–8. https://doi.org/10.1191/1352458504ms1098oa doi: 10.1191/1352458504ms1098oa. [DOI] [PubMed]
  70. Benedict RH, Zivadinov R. Reliability and validity of neuropsychological screening and assessment strategies in MS. J Neurol 2007;254(Suppl. 2):II22–II25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-007-2007-4 doi: 10.1007/s00415-007-2007-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  71. Benedict RH, Duquin JA, Jurgensen S, Rudick RA, Feitcher J, Munschauer FE, et al. Repeated assessment of neuropsychological deficits in multiple sclerosis using the Symbol Digit Modalities Test and the MS Neuropsychological Screening Questionnaire. Mult Scler 2008;14:940–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458508090923 doi: 10.1177/1352458508090923. [DOI] [PubMed]
  72. Vanotti S, Benedict RH, Acion L, Cáceres F, VANEM Workgroup. Validation of the Multiple Sclerosis Neuropsychological Screening Questionnaire in Argentina. Mult Scler 2009;15:244–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458508097924 doi: 10.1177/1352458508097924. [DOI] [PubMed]
  73. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
  74. Sharrack B, Hughes RA. The Guy’s Neurological Disability Scale (GNDS): a new disability measure for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 1999;5:223–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/135245859900500406 doi: 10.1177/135245859900500406. [DOI] [PubMed]
  75. Rossier P, Wade DT. The Guy’s Neurological Disability Scale in patients with multiple sclerosis: a clinical evaluation of its reliability and validity. Clin Rehabil 2002;16:75–95. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215502cr447oa doi: 10.1191/0269215502cr447oa. [DOI] [PubMed]
  76. Pappalardo A, Patti F. Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Guy’s Neurological Disability Scale. Funct Neurol 2010;25:223–33. [PubMed]
  77. Fraser C, McGurl J. Psychometric testing of the Americanized version of the Guy’s Neurological Disability Scale. J Neurosci Nurs 2007;39:13–19. https://doi.org/10.1097/01376517-200702000-00004 doi: 10.1097/01376517-200702000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  78. Bosma LV, Sonder JM, Kragt JJ, Polman CH, Uitdehaag BM. Detecting clinically-relevant changes in progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2015;21:171–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458514540969 doi: 10.1177/1352458514540969. [DOI] [PubMed]
  79. Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Uitdehaag BM. Factor structure of Guy’s Neurological Disability Scale in a sample of Dutch patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2011;17:1498–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458511413098 doi: 10.1177/1352458511413098. [DOI] [PubMed]
  80. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983;33:1444–52. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.33.11.1444 doi: 10.1212/WNL.33.11.1444. [DOI] [PubMed]
  81. Novakovic AM, Krekels EH, Munafo A, Ueckert S, Karlsson MO. Application of item response theory to modeling of expanded disability status scale in multiple sclerosis. AAPS J 2017;19:172–9. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-016-9977-z doi: 10.1208/s12248-016-9977-z. [DOI] [PubMed]
  82. Hoogervorst EL, van Winsen LM, Eikelenboom MJ, Kalkers NF, Uitdehaag BM, Polman CH. Comparisons of patient self-report, neurologic examination, and functional impairment in MS. Neurology 2001;56:934–7. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.56.7.934 doi: 10.1212/WNL.56.7.934. [DOI] [PubMed]
  83. Riazi A, Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson AJ. Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): reliability and validity in hospital based samples. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002;73:701–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.73.6.701 doi: 10.1136/jnnp.73.6.701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  84. Ramp M, Khan F, Misajon RA, Pallant JF. Rasch analysis of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale MSIS-29. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009;7:58. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-58 doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  85. Bacci ED, Wyrwich KW, Phillips GA, Vollmer T, Guo S. Analysis of the psychometric properties of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis using classical and modern test theory. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin 2016;2:2055217316673235. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055217316673235 doi: 10.1177/2055217316673235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  86. McGuigan C, Hutchinson M. The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) is a reliable and sensitive measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004;75:266–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  87. Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson AJ. How responsive is the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29)? A comparison with some other self report scales. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005;76:1539–43. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2005.064584 doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2005.064584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  88. Cleanthous S, Cano S, Kinter E, Marquis P, Petrillo J, You X, et al. Measuring the impact of multiple sclerosis: Enhancing the measurement performance of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29) using Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT). Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin 2017;3:2055217317725917. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055217317725917 doi: 10.1177/2055217317725917. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  89. Lincoln NB, Yuill F, Holmes J, Drummond AE, Constantinescu CS, Armstrong S, Phillips C. Evaluation of an adjustment group for people with multiple sclerosis and low mood: a randomized controlled trial. Mult Scler 2011;17:1250–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458511408753 doi: 10.1177/1352458511408753. [DOI] [PubMed]
  90. Thomas S, Thomas PW, Kersten P, Jones R, Green C, Nock A, et al. A pragmatic parallel arm multi-centre randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group-based fatigue management programme (FACETS) for people with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013;84:1092–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2012-303816 doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2012-303816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  91. Bogosian A, Chadwick P, Windgassen S, Norton S, McCrone P, Mosweu I, et al. Distress improves after mindfulness training for progressive MS: a pilot randomised trial. Mult Scler 2015;21:1184–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458515576261 doi: 10.1177/1352458515576261. [DOI] [PubMed]
  92. das Nair R, Kontou E, Smale K, Barker A, Lincoln NB. Comparing individual and group intervention for psychological adjustment in people with multiple sclerosis: a feasibility randomised controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2016;30:1156–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215515616446 doi: 10.1177/0269215515616446. [DOI] [PubMed]
  93. Hobart J, Cano S. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol Assess 2009;13(12). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta13120 doi: 10.3310/hta13120. [DOI] [PubMed]
  94. Sunderland A, Harris JE, Baddeley AD. Do laboratory tests predict everyday memory? A neuropsychological study. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 1983;22:341–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90229-3 doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90229-3. [DOI]
  95. das Nair R, Bradshaw LE, Carpenter H, Clarke S, Day F, Drummond A, et al. A group memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injuries: the ReMemBrIn RCT. Health Technol Assess 2019;23(16). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta23160 doi: 10.3310/hta23160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  96. Krupp LB, LaRocca NG, Muir-Nash J, Steinberg AD. The fatigue severity scale. Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Arch Neurol 1989;46:1121–3. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1989.00520460115022 doi: 10.1001/archneur.1989.00520460115022. [DOI] [PubMed]
  97. Mills R, Young C, Nicholas R, Pallant J, Tennant A. Rasch analysis of the Fatigue Severity Scale in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2009;15:81–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458508096215 doi: 10.1177/1352458508096215. [DOI] [PubMed]
  98. Rosti-Otajärvi E, Hämäläinen P, Wiksten A, Hakkarainen T, Ruutiainen J. Validity and reliability of the Fatigue Severity Scale in Finnish multiple sclerosis patients. Brain Behav 2017;7:e00743. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.743 doi: 10.1002/brb3.743. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  99. Ottonello M, Pellicciari L, Giordano A, Foti C. Rasch analysis of the Fatigue Severity Scale in Italian subjects with multiple sclerosis. J Rehabil Med 2016;48:597–603. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2116 doi: 10.2340/16501977-2116. [DOI] [PubMed]
  100. Goldberg DP, Williams P. A User’s Guide to the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor: NFER-Nelson; 1988.
  101. Moss-Morris R, Dennison L, Landau S, Yardley L, Silber E, Chalder T. A randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for adjusting to multiple sclerosis (the saMS trial): does CBT work and for whom does it work? J Consult Clin Psychol 2013;81:251–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029132 doi: 10.1037/a0029132. [DOI] [PubMed]
  102. Rosti-Otajärvi E, Ruutiainen J, Huhtala H, Hämäläinen P. Relationship between subjective and objective cognitive performance in multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand 2014;130:319–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12238 doi: 10.1111/ane.12238. [DOI] [PubMed]
  103. Kinsinger SW, Lattie E, Mohr DC. Relationship between depression, fatigue, subjective cognitive impairment, and objective neuropsychological functioning in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neuropsychology 2010;24:573–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019222 doi: 10.1037/a0019222. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  104. Baddeley AD, Emslie H, Nimmo-Smith I. Doors and People: a test of visual and verbal recall and recognition. Bury St Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Co.; 1994.
  105. Delis D, Kaplan E, Kramer J. Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 2001. https://doi.org/10.1037/t15082-000 doi: 10.1037/t15082-000. [DOI]
  106. EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;3:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  107. Humphreys I, Drummond AE, Phillips C, Lincoln NB. Cost-effectiveness of an adjustment group for people with multiple sclerosis and low mood: a randomized trial. Clin Rehabil 2013;27:963–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215513488608 doi: 10.1177/0269215513488608. [DOI] [PubMed]
  108. University of Nottingham. Long Term Conditions: Cognitive Rehabilitation for Attention and Memory in Multiple Sclerosis (CRAMMS) Trial. URL: www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/longtermconditions/cognitive-impact/cramms/index.aspx (accessed 12 August 2019).
  109. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687. [DOI] [PubMed]
  110. Thornton M, Travis SS. Analysis of the reliability of the modified caregiver strain index. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2003;58:S127–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/58.2.S127 doi: 10.1093/geronb/58.2.S127. [DOI] [PubMed]
  111. Robinson BC. Validation of a Caregiver Strain Index. J Gerontol 1983;38:344–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/38.3.344 doi: 10.1093/geronj/38.3.344. [DOI] [PubMed]
  112. World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. URL: www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ (accessed 13 September 2018).
  113. Health Research Authority. UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research. London: Health Research Authority; 2017.
  114. European Medicines Agency. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. URL: www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E6/E6_R2__Step_4_2016_1109.pdf (accessed 13 September 2018).
  115. Hawton A, Green C, Telford C, Zajicek J, Wright D. Using the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale to estimate health state utility values: mapping from the MSIS-29, version 2, to the EQ-5D and the SF-6D. Value Health 2012;15:1084–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.07.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.07.007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  116. White IR, Thompson SG. Adjusting for partially missing baseline measurements in randomized trials. Stat Med 2005;24:993–1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1981 doi: 10.1002/sim.1981. [DOI] [PubMed]
  117. Roberts C, Roberts SA. Design and analysis of clinical trials with clustering effects due to treatment. Clin Trials 2005;2:152–62. https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774505cn076oa doi: 10.1191/1740774505cn076oa. [DOI] [PubMed]
  118. Baldwin SA, Bauer DJ, Stice E, Rohde P. Evaluating models for partially clustered designs. Psychol Methods 2011;16:149–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023464 doi: 10.1037/a0023464. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  119. White IR. Uses and limitations of randomization-based efficacy estimators. Stat Methods Med Res 2005;14:327–47. https://doi.org/10.1191/0962280205sm406oa doi: 10.1191/0962280205sm406oa. [DOI] [PubMed]
  120. Shrier I, Steele RJ, Verhagen E, Herbert R, Riddell CA, Kaufman JS. Beyond intention to treat: what is the right question? Clin Trials 2014;11:28–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774513504151 doi: 10.1177/1740774513504151. [DOI] [PubMed]
  121. Roberts C, Batistatou E, Roberts SA. Design and analysis of trials with a partially nested design and a binary outcome measure. Stat Med 2016;35:1616–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6828 doi: 10.1002/sim.6828. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  122. Lincoln NB, Bradshaw LE, Constantinescu CS, Day F, Drummond AE, Fitzsimmons D, et al. Cognitive rehabilitation for attention and memory in people with multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial (CRAMMS) [published online ahead of print November 26 2019]. Clin Rehabil 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215519890378 doi: 10.1177/0269215519890378. [DOI] [PubMed]
  123. Moncher FJ, Prinz RJ. Treatment fidelity in outcome studies. Clin Psychol Rev 1991;11:247–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(91)90103-2 doi: 10.1016/0272-7358(91)90103-2. [DOI]
  124. Dumas JE, Lynch AM, Laughlin JE, Phillips Smith E, Prinz RJ. Promoting intervention fidelity. Conceptual issues, methods, and preliminary results from the EARLY ALLIANCE prevention trial. Am J Prev Med 2001;20(Suppl. 1):38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00272-5 doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00272-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  125. Walton H, Spector A, Tombor I, Michie S. Measures of fidelity of delivery of, and engagement with, complex, face-to-face health behaviour change interventions: a systematic review of measure quality. Br J Health Psychol 2017;22:872–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12260 doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  126. Borrelli B. The assessment, monitoring, and enhancement of treatment fidelity in public health clinical trials. J Public Health Dent 2011;71:S52–S63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2011.00233.x doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2011.00233.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  127. Bellg AJ, Borrelli B, Resnick B, Hecht J, Minicucci DS, Ory M, et al. Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: best practices and recommendations from the NIH Behavior Change Consortium. Health Psychol 2004;23:443–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.23.5.443 doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.23.5.443. [DOI] [PubMed]
  128. Jordan B, Henderson A. Interaction analysis: foundations and practice. J Learn Sci 1995;4:39–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2 doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2. [DOI]
  129. Heath C, Hindmarsh J. Analysing Work Activities In Face To Face Interaction Using Video. In May T, editor. Qualitative Research in Action. London: Sage; 1997. pp. 99–121.
  130. O’Brien MC, das Nair R, Lincoln NB. A comparison of the content of memory rehabilitation groups for patients with neurological disabilities. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2013;23:321–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2012.753920 doi: 10.1080/09602011.2012.753920. [DOI] [PubMed]
  131. Smale KJ, Carr SE, Schwartz AF, das Nair R, Lincoln NB. An evaluation of treatment integrity in a randomised controlled trial of memory rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil 2015;29:493–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215514548733 doi: 10.1177/0269215514548733. [DOI] [PubMed]
  132. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.
  133. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 2004;33:14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014 doi: 10.3102/0013189X033007014. [DOI]
  134. Bhaskar R. A Realist Theory of Science. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester; 1978.
  135. Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health 2015;42:533–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y doi: 10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  136. Klein OA, Drummond A, Mhizha-Murira JR, Mansford L, dasNair R. Effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis: a meta-synthesis of patient perspectives. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2019;29:491–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2017.1309323 doi: 10.1080/09602011.2017.1309323. [DOI] [PubMed]
  137. das Nair R, Martin KJ, Sinclair EJ. A meta-synthesis of qualitative research on perceptions of people with long-term neurological conditions about group-based memory rehabilitation. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2015;25:479–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2014.971820 doi: 10.1080/09602011.2014.971820. [DOI] [PubMed]
  138. Nelson J. Using conceptual depth criteria: addressing the challenge of reaching saturation in qualitative research. Qual Res 2017;17:554–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116679873 doi: 10.1177/1468794116679873. [DOI]
  139. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:117. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117 doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  140. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000;320:50–2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50 doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  141. Langer-Gould A, Brara SM, Beaber BE, Zhang JL. Incidence of multiple sclerosis in multiple racial and ethnic groups. Neurology 2013;80:1734–9. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182918cc2 doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182918cc2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  142. Novick G. Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research? Res Nurs Health 2008;31:391–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20259 doi: 10.1002/nur.20259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  143. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, Tyrer P. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 2000;321:694–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694 doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  144. Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Complex interventions: how ‘out of control’ can a randomised controlled trial be? BMJ 2004;328:1561–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7455.1561 doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7455.1561. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  145. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Position Statement on the Use of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Set. 2017. URL: www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-technology-appraisal-guidance/eq5d5l_nice_position_statement.pdf (accessed 10 May 2018).
  146. Goodwin E, Green C, Spencer A. Estimating a preference-based index for an eight-dimensional health state classification system for multiple sclerosis. Value Health 2015;18:1025–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.10.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  147. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2017. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2017.
  148. Department of Health and Social Care. NHS Reference Costs 2015 to 2016. 2017. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-reference-costs-2015-to-2016 (accessed 18 April 2018).
  149. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press. URL: www.medicinescomplete.com (accessed 18 April 2017).
  150. Carpenter JR, Kenward MG. Multiple Imputation and its Application. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119942283 doi: 10.1002/9781119942283. [DOI]
  151. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 1987. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316696 doi: 10.1002/9780470316696. [DOI]
  152. York Health Economics Consortium. Net Monetary Benefit. 2016. URL: www.yhec.co.uk/glossary/net-monetary-benefit/ (accessed 10 May 2018).
  153. Husereau D, Drummon M, Petrou S, Greenberg D, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ 2013;346:f1049. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1049 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1049. [DOI] [PubMed]
  154. Thorn JC, Brookes ST, Ridyard C, Riley R, Hughes DA, Wordsworth S, et al. Core items for a standardized resource use measure: expert Delphi consensus survey. Value Health 2018;21:640–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.06.011 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.06.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  155. Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Harooni R, Myers LW, Ellison GW. A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res 1995;4:187–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02260859 doi: 10.1007/BF02260859. [DOI] [PubMed]
  156. Fischer JS, LaRocca NG, Miller DM, Ritvo PG, Andrews H, Paty D. Recent developments in the assessment of quality of life in multiple sclerosis (MS). Mult Scler 1999;5:251–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/135245859900500410 doi: 10.1177/135245859900500410. [DOI] [PubMed]
  157. Bandari DS, Vollmer TL, Khatri BO, Tyry T. Assessing quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care 2010;12:34–41. https://doi.org/10.7224/1537-2073-12.1.34 doi: 10.7224/1537-2073-12.1.34. [DOI]
  158. Simeoni M, Auquier P, Fernandez O, Flachenecker P, Stecchi S, Constantinescu C, et al. Validation of the Multiple Sclerosis International Quality of Life questionnaire. Mult Scler 2008;14:219–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458507080733 doi: 10.1177/1352458507080733. [DOI] [PubMed]
  159. Baumstarck K, Butzkueven H, Fernández O, Flachenecker P, Stecchi S, Idiman E, et al. Responsiveness of the Multiple Sclerosis International Quality of Life questionnaire to disability change: a longitudinal study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013;11:127. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-127 doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  160. Chouliara N, Lincoln NB. Developing a questionnaire to assess the outcome of memory rehabilitation for people with neurological disabilities. Int J Ther Rehabil 2015;22:470–7. https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2015.22.10.470 doi: 10.12968/ijtr.2015.22.10.470. [DOI]
  161. Patchick E, Vail A, Wood A, Bowen A. PRECiS (Patient Reported Evaluation of Cognitive State): psychometric evaluation of a new patient reported outcome measure of the impact of stroke. Clin Rehabil 2016;30:1229–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215515624480 doi: 10.1177/0269215515624480. [DOI] [PubMed]
  162. Hamasaki T, Sugimoto T, Evans S, Sozu T. Sample size determination for clinical trials with co-primary outcomes: exponential event times. Pharm Stat 2013;12:28–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.1545 doi: 10.1002/pst.1545. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  163. Maor Y, Olmer L, Mozes B. The relation between objective and subjective impairment in cognitive function among multiple sclerosis patients – the role of depression. Mult Scler 2001;7:131–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/135245850100700209 doi: 10.1177/135245850100700209. [DOI] [PubMed]
  164. Julian L, Merluzzi NM, Mohr DC. The relationship among depression, subjective cognitive impairment, and neuropsychological performance in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2007;13:81–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458506070255 doi: 10.1177/1352458506070255. [DOI] [PubMed]
  165. Bruce JM, Hancock LM, Arnett P, Lynch S. Treatment adherence in multiple sclerosis: association with emotional status, personality, and cognition. J Behav Med 2010;33:219–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-010-9247-y doi: 10.1007/s10865-010-9247-y. [DOI] [PubMed]
  166. Henneghan A, Stuifbergen A, Becker H, Kullberg V, Gloris N. Perceived cognitive deficits in a sample of persons living with multiple sclerosis. J Neurosci Nurs 2017;49:274–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JNN.0000000000000314 doi: 10.1097/JNN.0000000000000314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  167. Popp L, Schneider S. Attention placebo control in randomized controlled trials of psychosocial interventions: theory and practice. Trials 2015;16:150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0679-0 doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0679-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  168. Hanssen KT, Beiske AG, Landrø NI, Hofoss D, Hessen E. Cognitive rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Neurol Scand 2016;133:30–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12420 doi: 10.1111/ane.12420. [DOI] [PubMed]
  169. Hancock LM, Bruce JM, Bruce AS, Lynch SG. Processing speed and working memory training in multiple sclerosis: a double-blind randomized controlled pilot study. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2015;37:113–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2014.989818 doi: 10.1080/13803395.2014.989818. [DOI] [PubMed]
  170. Pusswald G, Mildner C, Zebenholzer K, Auff E, Lehrner J. A neuropsychological rehabilitation program for patients with multiple sclerosis based on the model of the ICF. Neuro Rehabilitation 2014;35:519–27. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-141145 doi: 10.3233/NRE-141145. [DOI] [PubMed]
  171. Julian LJ, Vella L, Vollmer T, Hadjimichael O, Mohr DC. Employment in multiple sclerosis. Exiting and re-entering the work force. J Neurol 2008;255:1354–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-008-0910-y doi: 10.1007/s00415-008-0910-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  172. Piliavin JA, Siegl E. Health benefits of volunteering in the Wisconsin longitudinal study. J Health Soc Behav 2007;48:450–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650704800408 doi: 10.1177/002214650704800408. [DOI] [PubMed]
  173. Lum TY, Lightfoot E. The effects of volunteering on the physical and mental health of older people. Res Aging 2005;27:31–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027504271349 doi: 10.1177/0164027504271349. [DOI]
  174. Salter A, Thomas N, Tyry T, Cutter G, Marrie RA. Employment and absenteeism in working-age persons with multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ 2017;20:493–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2016.1277229 doi: 10.1080/13696998.2016.1277229. [DOI] [PubMed]
  175. Goodwin RA, Lincoln NB, Bateman A. Dysexecutive symptoms and carer strain following acquired brain injury: changes measured before and after holistic neuropsychological rehabilitation. Neuro Rehabilitation 2016;39:53–64. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-161338 doi: 10.3233/NRE-161338. [DOI] [PubMed]
  176. Kobelt G, Thompson A, Berg J, Gannedahl M, Eriksson J, MSCOI Study Group. New insights into the burden and costs of multiple sclerosis in Europe. Mult Scler 2017;23:1123–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458517694432 doi: 10.1177/1352458517694432. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  177. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trials 2010;11:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-11-32 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  178. Martin KJ, Sinclair EJ, dasNair R. Descriptions of memory rehabilitation group interventions for neurological conditions: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2016;30:705–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215515595273 doi: 10.1177/0269215515595273. [DOI] [PubMed]
  179. O’Brien A, Gaudino-Goering E, Shawaryn M, Komaroff E, Moore NB, DeLuca J. Relationship of the Multiple Sclerosis Neuropsychological Questionnaire (MSNQ) to functional, emotional, and neuropsychological outcomes. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2007;22:933–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2007.07.002 doi: 10.1016/j.acn.2007.07.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  180. Nauta IM, Balk LJ, Sonder JM, Hulst HE, Uitdehaag BM, Fasotti L, de Jong BA. The clinical value of the patient-reported multiple sclerosis neuropsychological screening questionnaire. Mult Scler 2019;25:1543–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458518777295 doi: 10.1177/1352458518777295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  181. Akbar N, Honarmand K, Kou N, Levine B, Rector N, Feinstein A. Validity of an internet version of the Multiple Sclerosis Neuropsychological Questionnaire. Mult Scler 2010;16:1500–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458510379615 doi: 10.1177/1352458510379615. [DOI] [PubMed]
  182. Benedict RH, Cookfair D, Gavett R, Gunther M, Munschauer F, Garg N, Weinstock-Guttman B. Validity of the minimal assessment of cognitive function in multiple sclerosis (MACFIMS). J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2006;12:549–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617706060723 doi: 10.1017/S1355617706060723. [DOI] [PubMed]
  183. Langdon DW, Amato MP, Boringa J, Brochet B, Foley F, Fredrikson S, et al. Recommendations for a Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS). Mult Scler 2012;18:891–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458511431076 doi: 10.1177/1352458511431076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  184. Dusankova JB, Kalincik T, Havrdova E, Benedict RH. Cross cultural validation of the Minimal Assessment of Cognitive Function in Multiple Sclerosis (MACFIMS) and the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS). Clin Neuropsychol 2012;26:1186–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2012.725101 doi: 10.1080/13854046.2012.725101. [DOI] [PubMed]
  185. Costers L, Gielen J, Eelen PL, Schependom JV, Laton J, Remoortel AV, et al. Does including the full CVLT-II and BVMT-R improve BICAMS? Evidence from a Belgian (Dutch) validation study. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2017;18:33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2017.08.018 doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2017.08.018. [DOI] [PubMed]
  186. Goretti B, Niccolai C, Hakiki B, Sturchio A, Falautano M, Minacapelli E, et al. The Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS): normative values with gender, age and education corrections in the Italian population. BMC Neurol 2014;14:171. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-014-0171-6 doi: 10.1186/s12883-014-0171-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  187. Walker LA, Osman L, Berard JA, Rees LM, Freedman MS, MacLean H, Cousineau D. Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS): Canadian contribution to the international validation project. J Neurol Sci 2016;362:147–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2016.01.040 doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2016.01.040. [DOI] [PubMed]
  188. Spedo CT, Frndak SE, Marques VD, Foss MP, Pereira DA, Carvalho Lde F, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the BICAMS in Brazil. Clin Neuropsychol 2015;29:836–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2015.1093173 doi: 10.1080/13854046.2015.1093173. [DOI] [PubMed]
  189. O’Connell K, Langdon D, Tubridy N, Hutchinson M, McGuigan C. A preliminary validation of the brief international cognitive assessment for multiple sclerosis (BICAMS) tool in an Irish population with multiple sclerosis (MS). Mult Scler Relat Disord 2015;4:521–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2015.07.012 doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2015.07.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  190. Niccolai C, Portaccio E, Goretti B, Hakiki B, Giannini M, Pastò L, et al. A comparison of the brief international cognitive assessment for multiple sclerosis and the brief repeatable battery in multiple sclerosis patients. BMC Neurol 2015;15:204. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-015-0460-8 doi: 10.1186/s12883-015-0460-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  191. Sumowski JF, Benedict R, Enzinger C, Filippi M, Geurts JJ, Hamalainen P, et al. Cognition in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2018;90:278–88. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000004977 doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004977. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  192. Wallin MT, Culpepper WJ, Coffman P, Pulaski S, Maloni H, Mahan CM, et al. The Gulf War era multiple sclerosis cohort: age and incidence rates by race, sex and service. Brain 2012;135:1778–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aws099 doi: 10.1093/brain/aws099. [DOI] [PubMed]
  193. Compston A, Coles A. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet 2002;359:1221–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08220-X doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08220-X. [DOI] [PubMed]
  194. Office for National Statistics. Ethnicity and National Identity in England and Wales: 2011. 2012. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/articles/ethnicityandnationalidentityinenglandandwales/2012-12-11 (accessed 14 September 2018).
  195. Office for National Statistics. Ethnic group. 2011. URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160202163427/http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/ks201ew (accessed 14 September 2018).
  196. National Institutes of Health. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guidelines on the Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research. Bethesda, MD: NIH; 1994.
  197. Mhizha-Murira JR, Drummond A, Klein OA, dasNair R. Reporting interventions in trials evaluating cognitive rehabilitation in people with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2018;32:243–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215517722583 doi: 10.1177/0269215517722583. [DOI] [PubMed]
  198. Bang H. Random guess and wishful thinking are the best blinding scenarios. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2016;3:117–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2016.05.003 doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2016.05.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  199. Luther A, Lincoln NB, Grant F. Reliability of stroke patients’ reports on rehabilitation services received. Clin Rehabil 1998;12:238–44. https://doi.org/10.1191/026921598671668617 doi: 10.1191/026921598671668617. [DOI] [PubMed]
  200. Phillips CJ, Humphreys I. Assessing cost-effectiveness in the management of multiple sclerosis. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2009;1:61–78. https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S4225 doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S4225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  201. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2016. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2016.
  202. Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2013. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2013.
  203. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2015. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2015.
  204. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Routine Preoperative Tests for Elective Surgery (Appendix M: Economic Considerations for Delphi) 2015. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG45/documents/guideline-appendices-13 (accessed September 2019).
  205. Turner J, O’Cathain A, Knowles E, Nicholl J, Tosh J, Sampson F, et al. Evaluation of NHS 111 Pilot Sites. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, Medical Care Research Unit; 2012.
  206. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. 2013. URL: www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword (accessed 20 April 2017). [PubMed]
  207. Office for National Statistics. National Life Tables: England and Wales. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/datasets/nationallifetablesenglandandwalesreferencetables (accessed 20 August 2019).
  208. Manouchehrinia A, Tanasescu R, Tench CR, Constantinescu CS. Mortality in multiple sclerosis: meta-analysis of standardised mortality ratios. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2016;87:324–31. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2015-310361 doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2015-310361. [DOI] [PubMed]
  209. Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.

RESOURCES