Advertisement

Psychological flexibility, distress, and quality of life in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: A cross-sectional study

Published:August 29, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2022.104154

      Abstract

      Introduction

      One of the strongest predictors of successful coping in multiple sclerosis (MS) is the extent to which one can accept the diagnosis and limitations associated with the disease. Acceptance is also one of three core processes of psychological flexibility – a malleable treatment target of some psychological therapies. This is the ability to notice and accept the presence of thoughts and feelings without being swept along by them, engaging in the present moment, and making decisions in line with personal values.
      Poor psychological flexibility is associated with elevated levels of distress in the general population. However, we do not know the level of psychological flexibility in people with MS, or its relationship to distress or quality of life when the disease becomes more physically disabling. The aims of this study were to determine the level of psychological flexibility, and its relationship with distress and quality of life in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), a subtype of MS with increased severity of disability and distress.

      Method

      This cross-sectional analytic study used data collected by the UK MS Register. Pre-existing data on distress, quality of life, disability, and demographics collected by the UK MS Register were combined with a psychological flexibility measure and its component parts, collected for the purpose of this study.
      Patient demographics and questionnaire data were recorded for distress, quality of life, and psychological flexibility. Pearson's correlations were used to examine bivariate relationships between distress, quality of life, disability and psychological flexibility. Whether psychological flexibility moderated the relationship between disability (predictor), distress and quality of life (outcomes) was also investigated.

      Results

      Between February and March 2020, 628 participants with SPMS completed the CompACT and had a recent (<12 months) HADS questionnaire (Mage = 60.66, 70.90% women). On the HADS questionnaire subscales, 44% of the sample scored above the MS clinical cut-off (≥8) for anxiety (M = 7.09, SD = 4.57), and 30% above the clinical cut off (≥11) for depression (M = 8.35, SD = 4.21). Psychological flexibility (M = 81.94, SD = 22.60) and its components were each moderately negatively correlated with total distress (r = -0.65), anxiety (r = −0.58), and depression (r = -0.56). A second subsample (n = 434) completed the EQ-5D-5L health-related quality of life measure, which was moderately positively correlated with psychological flexibility (r = 0.47). A third subsample (n = 210) found a weak negative relationship between psychological flexibility and disability (r = -0.16), a weak positive relationship between distress and disability (r = 0.26), and a moderate negative relationship between quality of life and disability (r = -0.56). Psychological flexibility was not found to moderate the relationships between disability and anxiety, depression, or quality of life in SPMS.

      Discussion

      Greater psychological flexibility was associated with lower self-reported distress and higher quality of life in this SPMS sample. It was not shown to moderate the extent to which physical disability predicts distress or quality of life in SPMS.
      These findings demonstrate that greater psychological flexibility is related to better coping outcomes (lower distress, higher quality of life) in SPMS. If psychological flexibility can be increased in people with SPMS, this could lead to a reduction in distress and improvement in quality of life, although directionality could not be attributed with these methods. Further longitudinal evidence and trials of psychological flexibility-focussed interventions are needed.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Barlow D.H.
        Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic.
        Guilford press, 2004
        • Bayliss K.
        Confirmatory Factor Analysis and further validation of the Comprehensive assessment of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy processes (CompACT).
        [Unpublished Thesis, University of Nottingham], Nottingham2018
        • Boeschoten R.E.
        • Braamse A.M.J.
        • Beekman A.T.F.
        • Cuijpers P.
        • van Oppen P.
        • Dekker J.
        • Uitdehaag B.M.J.
        Prevalence of depression and anxiety in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J. Neurol. Sci. 2017; 372: 331-341https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2016.11.067
        • Bond F.W.
        • Hayes S.C.
        • Baer R.A.
        • Carpenter K.M.
        • Guenole N.
        • Orcutt H.K.
        • Waltz T.
        • Zettle R.D.
        Preliminary psychometric properties of the acceptance and action questionnaire-ii: a revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance.
        Behav. Ther. 2011; 42: 676-688https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007
        • Cherry K.M.
        • Hoeven E.V.
        • Patterson T.S.
        • Lumley M.N.
        Defining and measuring “psychological flexibility”: a narrative scoping review of diverse flexibility and rigidity constructs and perspectives.
        Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2021; 84101973https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.101973
        • Chiu C.
        • Bishop M.
        • McDaniels B.
        • Kim B.-J.
        • Tiro L.
        A population-based investigation of health-care needs and preferences in american adults with multiple sclerosis.
        J. Patient Experience. 2018; 7: 34-41https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373518812078
        • Crawford J.R.
        • Henry J.D.
        • Crombie C.
        • Taylor E.P.
        Normative data for the HADS from a large non-clinical sample.
        Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 2001; 40: 429-434https://doi.org/10.1348/014466501163904
        • Croft A.
        • Mynors G.
        • Roberts M.
        • Doncaster D.
        • Bowen A.
        • Trust M.S.
        MS forward view: a consensus for the future of MS services.
        Multiple Sclerosis Trust. 2016; 9: S5-S48
        • Dancey C.
        • Reidy J.
        Statistics without maths for psychology: using SPSS for windows.
        Prentice Hall, London2004
        • Dawson D.L.
        • Golijani-Moghaddam N.
        COVID-19: Psychological flexibility, coping, mental health, and wellbeing in the UK during the pandemic.
        Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science. 2020; 17: 126-134https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.07.010
        • Devlin N.J.
        • Shah K.K.
        • Feng Y.
        • Mulhern B.
        • van Hout B.
        Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England.
        Health Econ. 2018; 27: 7-22https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3564
        • Feng Y.-S.
        • Kohlmann T.
        • Janssen M.F.
        • Buchholz I.
        Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L: a systematic review of the literature.
        Qual. Life Res. 2021; 30: 647-673https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02688-y
        • Feng Y.
        • Devlin N.
        • Herdman M.
        Assessing the health of the general population in England: how do the three- and five-level versions of EQ-5D compare?.
        Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2015; 13: 171https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0356-8
        • Fonseca S.
        • Trindade I.A.
        • Mendes A.L.
        • Ferreira C.
        The buffer role of psychological flexibility against the impact of major life events on depression symptoms.
        Clin. Psychologist. 2020; 24: 82-90https://doi.org/10.1111/cp.12194
        • Ford D.V.
        • Jones K.H.
        • Middleton R.M.
        • Lockhart-Jones H.
        • Maramba I.D.
        • Noble G.J.
        • Osborne L.A.
        • Lyons R.A.
        The feasibility of collecting information from people with Multiple Sclerosis for the UK MS Register via a web portal: characterising a cohort of people with MS.
        BMC Med. Inf. Decis. Making. 2012; 12: 73https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-73
        • Ford D.V.
        • Middleton R.M.
        • Tuite-Dalton K.
        • Lockhart-Jones H.
        • Rodgers J.
        • Craig E.
        • Griffiths D.
        • Jones L.
        • Nicholas R.
        • Bale M.
        Our Data: The UK MS Register.
        2021 (Retrieved 12/07/21 from)
        • Francis A.W.
        • Dawson D.L.
        • Golijani-Moghaddam N.
        The development and validation of the comprehensive assessment of acceptance and commitment therapy processes (compact).
        J. Contextual behav. Sci. 2016; 5: 134-145
        • Giovannetti A.M.
        • Solari A.
        • Pakenham K.I.
        Effectiveness of a group resilience intervention for people with multiple sclerosis delivered via frontline services.
        Disabil. Rehabil. 2021; : 1-11https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.1960441
        • Gloster A.T.
        • Meyer A.H.
        • Lieb R.
        Psychological flexibility as a malleable public health target: evidence from a representative sample.
        J. Contextual behav. Sci. 2017; 6: 166-171https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2017.02.003
        • Graham C.D.
        • Gouick J.
        • Ferreira N.
        • Gillanders D.
        The influence of psychological flexibility on life satisfaction and mood in muscle disorders.
        Rehabil. Psychol. 2016; 61: 210-217https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000092
        • Graham C.D.
        • Gouick J.
        • Krahé C.
        • Gillanders D.
        A systematic review of the use of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) in chronic disease and long-term conditions.
        Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2016; 46: 46-58
        • Hayes A.F.
        Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach.
        Guilford publications, 2017
        • Henson R.K.
        Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: a conceptual primer on coefficient alpha.
        Measurement and Eval. Counseling and Develop. 2001; 34: 177-189https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2002.12069034
        • Hernandez G.
        • Garin O.
        • Pardo Y.
        • Vilagut G.
        • Pont À.
        • Suárez M.
        • Neira M.
        • Rajmil L.
        • Gorostiza I.
        • Ramallo-Fariña Y.
        • Cabases J.
        • Alonso J.
        • Ferrer M.
        Validity of the EQ–5D–5L and reference norms for the Spanish population.
        Qual. Life Res. 2018; 27: 2337-2348https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1877-5
        • Honarmand K.
        • Feinstein A.
        Validation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for use with multiple sclerosis patients.
        Mult. Scler. 2009; 15: 1518-1524https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458509347150
        • Hughes L.S.
        • Clark J.
        • Colclough J.A.
        • Dale E.
        • McMillan D.
        Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for chronic pain.
        Clin. J. Pain. 2017; 33: 552-568https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000000425
        • Hulbert-Williams N.J.
        • Storey L.
        • Wilson K.G.
        Psychological interventions for patients with cancer: psychological flexibility and the potential utility of acceptance and commitment therapy.
        Eur. J. Cancer Care (Engl). 2015; 24: 15-27https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12223
        • Iaffaldano P.
        • Lucisano G.
        • Patti F.
        • Brescia Morra V.
        • De Luca G.
        • Lugaresi A.
        • Zaffaroni M.
        • Inglese M.
        • Salemi G.
        • Cocco E.
        • Conte A.
        • Ferraro D.
        • Galgani S.
        • Bergamaschi R.
        • Pozzilli C.
        • Salvetti M.
        • Lus G.
        • Rovaris M.
        • Maniscalco G.T.
        • Logullo F.O.
        • Paolicelli D.
        • Achille M.
        • Marrazzo G.
        • Lovato V.
        • Comi G.
        • Filippi M.
        • Amato M.P.
        • Trojano M.
        Transition to secondary progression in relapsing-onset multiple sclerosis: definitions and risk factors.
        Multiple Sclerosis J. 2020; 27: 430-438https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458520974366
        • Jones K.H.
        • Ford D.V.
        • Jones P.A.
        • John A.
        • Middleton R.M.
        • Lockhart-Jones H.
        • Osborne L.A.
        • Noble J.G.
        A Large-Scale Study of Anxiety and Depression in People with Multiple Sclerosis: A Survey via the Web Portal of the UK MS Register.
        PLoS One. 2012; 7: e41910https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041910
        • Jones K.H.
        • Ford D.V.
        • Jones P.A.
        • John A.
        • Middleton R.M.
        • Lockhart-Jones H.
        • Peng J.
        • Osborne L.A.
        • Noble J.G.
        How people with multiple sclerosis rate their quality of life: an EQ-5D survey via the UK MS register.
        PLoS One. 2013; 8: e65640https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065640
        • Kanzler K.E.
        • Robinson P.J.
        • McGeary D.D.
        • Mintz J.
        • Kilpela L.S.
        • Finley E.P.
        • McGeary C.
        • Lopez E.J.
        • Velligan D.
        • Munante M.
        • Tsevat J.
        • Houston B.
        • Mathias C.W.
        • Potter J.S.
        • Pugh J.
        Addressing chronic pain with Focused Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in integrated primary care: findings from a mixed methods pilot randomized controlled trial.
        BMC Primary Care. 2022; 23: 77https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01690-2
        • Kashdan T.B.
        • Rottenberg J.
        Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health.
        Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2010; 30: 865-878
        • Koch M.
        • Kingwell E.
        • Rieckmann P.
        • Tremlett H.
        • Neurologists U.M.C.
        The natural history of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis.
        J. Neurol., Neurosurg. Psychiatry. 2010; 81: 1039https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2010.208173
        • Kurtzke J.F.
        Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis.
        Neurology. 1983; 33: 1444https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.33.11.1444
        • Kuspinar A.
        • Mayo N.E.
        A review of the psychometric properties of generic utility measures in multiple sclerosis.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 2014; 32: 759-773https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0167-5
        • Lublin F.D.
        • Reingold S.C.
        • Cohen J.A.
        • Cutter G.R.
        • Sørensen P.S.
        • Thompson A.J.
        • Wolinsky J.S.
        • Balcer L.J.
        • Banwell B.
        • Barkhof F.
        • Bebo B.
        • Calabresi P.A.
        • Clanet M.
        • Comi G.
        • Fox R.J.
        • Freedman M.S.
        • Goodman A.D.
        • Inglese M.
        • Kappos L.
        • Kieseier B.C.
        • Lincoln J.A.
        • Lubetzki C.
        • Miller A.E.
        • Montalban X.
        • Connor P.W.
        • Petkau J.
        • Pozzilli C.
        • Rudick R.A.
        • Sormani M.P.
        • Stüve O.
        • Waubant E.
        • Polman C.H.
        Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis.
        Neurology. 2014; 83: 278https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000000560
        • Marrie R.A.
        • Zhang L.
        • Lix L.M.
        • Graff L.A.
        • Walker J.R.
        • Fisk J.D.
        • Patten S.B.
        • Hitchon C.A.
        • Bolton J.M.
        • Sareen J.
        • El-Gabalawy R.
        • Marriott J.J.
        • Bernstein C.N.
        The validity and reliability of screening measures for depression and anxiety disorders in multiple sclerosis.
        Multiple Scler. Related Disord. 2018; 20: 9-15https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2017.12.007
        • McCracken L.M.
        • Gutiérrez-Martínez O.
        Processes of change in psychological flexibility in an interdisciplinary group-based treatment for chronic pain based on acceptance and commitment therapy.
        Behav. Res. Ther. 2011; 49: 267-274https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2011.02.004
        • McCracken L.M.
        • Velleman S.C.
        Psychological flexibility in adults with chronic pain: A study of acceptance, mindfulness, and values-based action in primary care.
        Pain. 2010; 148: 141-147https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2009.10.034
        • Meek C.
        • Topcu G.
        • Moghaddam N.
        • das Nair R.
        Experiences of adjustment to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: a meta-ethnographic systematic review.
        Disabil. Rehabil. 2020; : 1-12https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2020.1734105
        • Meyer-Moock S.
        • Feng Y.-S.
        • Maeurer M.
        • Dippel F.-W.
        • Kohlmann T.
        Systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) in patients with multiple sclerosis.
        BMC Neurol. 2014; 14: 58https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2377-14-58
        • Middleton R.M.
        • Rodgers W.J.
        • Chataway J.
        • Schmierer K.
        • Rog D.
        • Galea I.
        • Akbari A.
        • Tuite-Dalton K.
        • Lockhart-Jones H.
        • Griffiths D.
        • Noble D.G.
        • Jones K.H.
        • Al-Din A.
        • Craner M.
        • Evangelou N.
        • Harman P.
        • Harrower T.
        • Hobart J.
        • Husseyin H.
        • Kasti M.
        • Kipps C.
        • McDonnell G.
        • Owen C.
        • Pearson O.
        • Rashid W.
        • Wilson H.
        • Ford D.V.
        Validating the portal population of the United Kingdom multiple sclerosis register.
        Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2018; 24: 3-10https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2018.05.015
        • Moss-Morris R.
        Adjusting to chronic illness: time for a unified theory.
        Br. J. Health Psychol. 2013; 18: 681-686https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12072
        • Mynors G.
        • Bowen A.
        • Doncaster D.
        MS Specialist Nursing in the UK 2016: Report on progress towards equitable provision.
        2016 (Retrieved May from)
        • Ong C.W.
        • Pierce B.G.
        • Petersen J.M.
        • Barney J.L.
        • Fruge J.E.
        • Levin M.E.
        • Twohig M.P.
        A psychometric comparison of psychological inflexibility measures: discriminant validity and item performance.
        J. Contextual Behav. Sci. 2020; 18: 34-47https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.08.007
        • Ong C.W.
        • Pierce B.G.
        • Woods D.W.
        • Twohig M.P.
        • Levin M.E.
        The acceptance and action questionnaire – II: an item response theory analysis.
        J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assessment. 2019; 41: 123-134https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9694-2
        • Pakenham K.I.
        • Mawdsley M.
        • Brown F.L.
        • Burton N.W.
        Pilot evaluation of a resilience training program for people with multiple sclerosis.
        Rehabil. Psychol. 2018; 63: 29-42https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000167
        • Rogge R.D.
        • Daks J.S.
        • Dubler B.A.
        • Saint K.J.
        It's all about the process: Examining the convergent validity, conceptual coverage, unique predictive validity, and clinical utility of ACT process measures.
        J. Contextual behav. Sci. 2019; 14: 90-102https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2019.10.001
        • Tavakol M.
        • Dennick R.
        Making sense of Cronbach's alpha.
        Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011; 2: 53-55https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
        • Topcu G.
        • Griffiths H.
        • Bale C.
        • Trigg E.
        • Clarke S.
        • Potter K.-J.
        • Mhizha-Murira J.R.
        • Drummond A.
        • Evangelou N.
        • Fitzsimmons D.
        • das Nair R.
        Psychosocial adjustment to multiple sclerosis diagnosis: a meta-review of systematic reviews.
        Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2020; 82101923https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101923
        • Valvano A.
        • Floyd R.M.
        • Penwell-Waines L.
        • Stepleman L.
        • Lewis K.
        • House A.
        The relationship between cognitive fusion, stigma, and well-being in people with multiple sclerosis.
        J. Contextual behav. Sci. 2016; 5: 266-270https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.07.003
        • Wallin M.T.
        • Culpepper W.J.
        • Nichols E.
        • Bhutta Z.A.
        • Gebrehiwot T.T.
        • Hay S.I.
        • Khalil I.A.
        • Krohn K.J.
        • Liang X.
        • Naghavi M.
        • Mokdad A.H.
        • Nixon M.R.
        • Reiner R.C.
        • Sartorius B.
        • Smith M.
        • Topor-Madry R.
        • Werdecker A.
        • Vos T.
        • Feigin V.L.
        • Murray C.J.L.
        Global, regional, and national burden of multiple sclerosis 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016.
        The Lancet Neurology. 2019; 18: 269-285https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30443-5
        • Watson T.M.
        • Ford E.
        • Worthington E.
        • Lincoln N.B.
        Validation of Mood Measures for People with Multiple Sclerosis.
        Int. J. MS Care. 2014; 16: 105-109https://doi.org/10.7224/1537-2073.2013-013
        • Wolgast M.
        What does the acceptance and action questionnaire (AAQ-II) really measure?.
        Behav. Ther. 2014; 45: 831-839https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2014.07.002
        • Zigmond A.S.
        • Snaith R.P.
        The hospital anxiety and depression scale.
        Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 1983; 67: 361-370https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x