MATERIALS AND METHODS: English speaking patients older than 18 years of age with a defi nite diagnosis of MS were included. The self-administered survey material included the adapted HRQoL questionnaire, a validated generic HRQoL questionnaire: the short-form 36 (SF-36), as well as a checklist of 14 symptoms. We assessed the internal and external validity of the adapted MusiQoL.
RESULTS: A total of 81 patients with MS were included in the study. The questionnaire was generally well accepted. In the samples from Malaysia and Singapore, all scales exhibited good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha >0.70). Correlation to SF-36 was generally good, demonstrating high construct validity (P <0.001) in some aspects of the MusiQoL.
CONCLUSION: The Asian adaptation of the English version of the MusiQoL in evaluating HRQoL seems to be a valid, reliable tool with adequate patient acceptability and internal consistency.
METHODS: Thirty patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), age: 29.5 (SD = 5.6) years and 30 healthy gender-, age-, and education-matched control group participants, age: 28.8 (SD = 6.0) years, were recruited for this study. The participants in the healthy group were then randomly assigned into an EI (n = 15) group and a no-EI (n = 15) group. Similarly, the participants in the control group were then randomly assigned into EI (n = 15) and no-EI (n = 15) groups. The participants performed a serial reaction time (SRT) task and reaction times. A retention test was performed after 48 hours.
RESULTS: All participants reduced their reaction times across acquisition (MS group: 46.4 (SD = 3.3) minutes, P < 0.001, and healthy group: 39.4 (SD = 3.3) minutes, P < 0.001). The findings for the within-participants effect of repeated measures of time were significant (F(5.06, 283.7) = 71.33. P < 0.001). These results indicate that the interaction between group and time was significant (F(5.06, 283.7) = 6.44. P < 0.001), which indicated that the reaction time in both groups was significantly changed between the MS and healthy groups across times (B1 to B10). The main effect of the group (MS and healthy) (F(1, 56) = 22.78. P < 0.001) and also the main effect of no-EI vs EI (F(1, 56) = 4.71. P < 0.001) were significant.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that that RRMS patients are capable of learning new skills, but the provision of EI prior to physical practice is deleterious to implicit learning. It is sufficient to educate MS patients on the aim and general content of the training and only to provide feedback at the end of the rehabilitative session.