This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Impact of Mobility Impairment in Multiple Sclerosis 2 – Patients’ Perspectives


patients and within two years for 67 %) and the appearance of mobility difficulties in almost all patients within 10 years of diagnosis, confirm previous reports on the progressive deterioration of mobility in this disease.21,22


Moreover, the fact that mobility was seen as an issue across all ages again confirms previous findings.7,23,24


As this was a


survey of patients’ perceptions of mobility impairment, it did not request clinical information, such as EDSS scores or other mobility assessments; thus, data are not available to compare clinical and perceived measures of disability. Nevertheless, it is clear that mobility impairment is a significant problem for MS patients, as demonstrated by the high percentage who reported daily and weekly mobility difficulties. Interestingly there were some differences in perceived mobility issues between men and women. Men reported a greater number of significant mobility difficulties than women, while women reported greater levels of fatigue. One possible cause for the increased incidence of mobility problems in men may be work-related. Although participants in this survey were not specifically asked whether they were employed, more women than men had been unemployed in the preceding six months (64 % versus 58 %, respectively, substantially higher than the unemployment rates in the countries surveyed). Furthermore, previous studies have indicated that men with MS are more likely to be employed, either full- or part-time, than women, irrespective of the severity of mobility impairment.6,9


A greater


incidence of fatigue has been previously documented in women,29,30 but this is not a universal finding31,32


and possible reasons for this


discrepancy are not clear. Evident differences were also observed between different countries, for instance mobility impairment was more of an issue for patients in the UK than in Sweden. Country-specific variations in mobility impairment may depend on a host of possible causes including differences in definitions, perceptions and attitudes to mobility impairment symptoms; infrastructure and structure and organisation of healthcare systems and policies. The impact of mobility impairment may also be affected by the extent of support networks including social security and welfare systems; cultural and historical background such as a day-to-day dependency on ambulation and rural or urban residency.


These findings differ from the results of a previous survey of MS patients in the US where 39 % of patients reported that they rarely or never discussed mobility issues with a physician.34


In this study, the majority of patients stated that they discussed their mobility issues with HCPs, similar to findings in the companion article.33


It is possible that


methodological differences between the surveys, including wording of the surveys, or participants’ interpretation of the questions may be responsible for this discrepancy. However, it is important to note that a specific criterion for participation in this survey was experience of mobility impairment. The point of contact for individual patients, however, was particularly dependent on geographical location. Again this may be owing to the cultural and historical background of individual countries, and the structure, organisation and availability of healthcare and social support systems. Surprisingly, the follow-up time to reassessment of mobility issues varied significantly between countries and was especially long in Sweden. One possible explanation is that most patients in Sweden discussed mobility issues only with hospital doctors or neurologists specialising in MS, whereas in other countries patients discussed their mobility with other HCPs, therefore presenting more opportunities for these assessments. It is also possible, however, that differences in the patients’ understanding of what constitutes mobility impairment and what constitutes an assessment may be responsible. Interestingly, the long follow-up


EUROPEAN NEUROLOGICAL REVIEW


Table 6: Healthcare Professionals’ and Patients’ Ranking of Symptoms of Mobility Impairment


Ranking Symptom


Weakness in the legs Numbness in legs


Slowness in movement Difficulty walking


Lack of balance/co-ordination Fatigue


Dropping one foot or dragging one foot behind the other


Healthcare Patients Professionals 3= 5 7 2 1


3= 6


1 6 5 3 4 2 7


Symptoms are ranked in order of prevalence where 1 = most prevalent and 7 = least prevalent.


times reported by patients in Sweden are supported by the long follow-up times reported by Swedish HCPs in the accompanying survey,33


indicating that it might be a genuine phenomenon.


Mobility impairment was shown to have a significant effect on working life in the majority of patients, with approximately two thirds of respondents believing that mobility difficulties had contributed to a loss of earnings, similar to previous findings.6,9–11


Again, there were


significant geographical differences in the number of patients for whom mobility difficulties affected working life. Such variations may reflect differences in cultural and historical background and also social security systems, as well as the presence and availability of facilities to keep people in work and legal and financial support for the unemployed. Between 60–70 % of patients also believed that mobility difficulties significantly impacted on their family and social lives,2 approximately one third exhibiting suicidal ideation.35,36


with It is interesting


to note that many patients are now turning to new social networking media to communicate their experiences with mobility impairment. However, local MS societies clearly remain an integral part of MS management and communication.


When asked to choose words that describe their current feelings about mobility-related issues, the five words most frequently chosen by patients (‘limited’, ‘frustrated’, ‘powerless’, ‘challenged’ and ‘accepting’) had fewer negative connotations than some of the words less often chosen (‘angry’, ‘helpless’, ‘depressed’, ‘demoralised’ and ‘frightened’). The choice of ‘accepting’ in particular suggests that most patients are resigned to having mobility difficulties, but they are inclined to take action to prevent it interfering with their everyday lives as much as possible.37


Comparing Impact of Mobility Impairment in Multiple Sclerosis – Patients’ versus Healthcare Professionals’ Perspectives


Irrespective of any inconsistencies in methodology, the parallel commissioning of two surveys, one targeting HCPs33


and the other


targeting MS patients, enables the broad comparison of each groups’ perspectives on the impact of mobility difficulties for MS patients. Such comparisons are rare in the published literature,38


but may provide


valuable insights. When comparing the two surveys, there were clear discrepancies between HCPs’ and patients’ perspectives on the impact of mobility impairment. Perhaps surprisingly, neurologist and neurology nurses in a recent survey believed that only 56 % of MS patients under their care experienced mobility issues.33


Although this is 119


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76