Inpatient rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis
Do the benefits carry over into the community?
Citation Manager Formats
Make Comment
See Comments

Abstract
Objective: To determine the duration and pattern of carry-over of benefits gained after a short period of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation.
Background: Few studies have evaluated the outcome of rehabilitation after discharge. Long-term follow-up is required to establish whether gains made during the inpatient stay are sustained over time and in the patient’s own environment.
Methods: Prospective single-group longitudinal study. Fifty consecutive patients with progressive MS undergoing inpatient rehabilitation were followed for 12 months after discharge. Assessments were undertaken on admission (A), at discharge, and subsequently at 3-month intervals for 1 year (1Y) with a battery of measures addressing neurologic status, disability, handicap, quality of life, and emotional well-being. The time taken to return to baseline level was calculated using summary measures, and trends in performance levels were plotted.
Results: Twelve-month data were collected for 92% of patients. Although neurologic status declined (median Expanded Disability Status Scale scores: A = 6.8, 1Y = 8.0), improvements were maintained in disability and handicap for 6 months, emotional well-being for 7 months, and health-related quality of life (physical component) for 10 months.
Conclusions: The benefits gained from rehabilitation were partly maintained after discharge despite worsening neurologic status. Carry-over of benefits, however, declined over time, reinforcing the need for continuity of care between the inpatient setting and the community.
When determining the effectiveness of inpatient rehabilitation there are two equally important aspects to measure: benefits gained during the inpatient stay and carry-over of these benefits to the home environment. A wait-list, randomized controlled study was recently reported demonstrating that inpatient rehabilitation was effective in reducing disability and handicap in patients with progressive MS despite unchanging neurologic status.1 This study, like most others evaluating MS rehabilitation, measured the short-term outcome. Long-term follow-up is required to establish whether gains made during the inpatient stay are sustained over time and in the patient’s own environment.
This article reports the results of a single-group, prospective longitudinal study that examines the long-term carry-over of benefit of patients with progressive MS after a short period of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation. The study’s purpose was to document pattern of performance and quantify duration of carry-over of benefit in a range of variables.
Methods.
Patients.
Eligible patients had a diagnosis of clinically or laboratory-supported definite MS,2 were in the progressive phase of the disease,3 and were considered suitable for inpatient rehabilitation.4 Patients were excluded if they were within 1 month of relapse or receiving steroids, had other diseases that may have interfered with outcome, or were cognitively impaired such that they were unable to give informed consent. Patients were admitted sequentially into the study until 50 subjects were recruited.
Measures.
Routine demographic and diagnostic data were recorded for all patients. Severity of MS was determined by Kurtzke’s Functional Systems (FS) and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS).5 Disability (functional change) and handicap (socioeconomic limitations) were the study’s primary outcome measures. Disability was measured using the motor domain of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM),6 a 13-item scale that rates the patient’s ability to undertake basic daily functional activities. Handicap was measured using the London Handicap Scale (LHS),7 a six-item self-report questionnaire that rates a range of dimensions including mobility, orientation, occupation, and social integration. In addition, self-report measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were assessed with the 36-item Short Form Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36),8 and emotional well-being was assessed with the 28-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ).9
Procedures.
Patients were assessed at six time points: on admission, at discharge, and at 3-month intervals for 1 year after discharge. At each assessment the measures were randomly administered to prevent systematic bias resulting from practice effects or fatigue. Neither assessors nor patients were permitted to see their responses from previous occasions.
The following information was also collected at each time point: number of relapses in the 6 months preceding and during the study2; pharmacologic details; social service, outpatient therapy, and hospitalization details; and significant changes in social circumstances (e.g., divorce).
Statistical analysis.
Serial data were analyzed using summary measures11 that provide information relevant to the clinical question posed. Unlike group statistics, the individual is considered as the basic unit, with each subject being related to that individual’s own baseline. Data analysis has two stages. First, serial measurements are graphed for every individual to indicate the relationship between the outcome measure and time. From these a key feature is identified that best addresses the question posed. This “summary measure” is then calculated for each individual. Second, summary measures are analyzed as if they are raw data.
When considering what summary measure to use, we made a basic assumption that patients with progressive MS would deteriorate over time in a range of daily life outcomes. We then posed the question: “Could deterioration across a range of areas be delayed by a short period of rehabilitation?” The time taken for patients to return to their baseline (admission) score was therefore chosen as the summary measure, thus providing an estimate of the duration of carry-over of benefit. This was calculated from each individual’s graph by linear interpolation.
Precise calculation of summary measures proved impossible when all scores remained above the baseline value throughout the study. We attempted to overcome this by modeling each individual’s time series data using a Curve Estimation procedure.12 This proved unsuccessful; no regression model adequately fitted the data (p > 0.05). The solution in these cases was to calculate the summary measure as 365 days, the duration of the study. This provided a conservative estimate of the least number of days that deterioration was delayed and excluded any improvements maintained after the final assessment.
All available data were analyzed at each time point using SPSS Version 6.0.12 Descriptive statistics defined the sample’s demographic and diagnostic characteristics, outcome scores at each time point, and summary measure for every outcome. The 95% CIs for summary measures were calculated. A visual analysis of the individual’s time series plots determined the time at which patients peaked in each outcome.
Results.
Sample: Baseline characteristics.
Over a 12-month period 73 of the 186 MS patients referred for assessment for rehabilitation were selected for admission. Twenty-two patients failed to satisfy entry criteria, and one declined to participate. Complete data for all assessment points were available on 44 patients. Five of the 6 patients with incomplete data were severely disabled (EDSS ≥ 7.0). Two died shortly before the final assessment, 3 declined a proportion of the reviews, and 1 was lost to follow-up.
Demographic and disease characteristics are summarized in table 1 and baseline scores for all measures in table 2. The FIM motor domain scores showed wide variations in functional ability for a range of activities. The LHS and SF-36 scores indicated that mobility, physical and social functioning, occupation, and energy were all markedly affected. Using pre-established criteria,9 74% of patients scored five points or more on the GHQ, indicating the presence of emotional disturbance.
Baseline demographic and disease characteristics
Baseline outcome measurement values
The mean duration of the inpatient stay was 23 days (SD ± 11.5, range 10 to 62). Of the 50 patients, 35 were admitted from home, 13 from hospital, and 1 each from a rehabilitation unit and a residential unit. On discharge 48 patients returned home, 1 to a hospital, and 1 to a residential unit. Table 3 details the additional hospital and community services recommended on discharge and the time taken for them to commence.
Additional hospital and community services recommended at discharge
Summary measures (table 4). Summary measures demonstrate that, on average, improvements were maintained in disability and handicap for 6 months, emotional well-being for 7 months, and HRQOL (physical component) for almost 10 months after discharge. The wide range and large 95% CIs indicate the marked variability in duration of benefits between individuals.
Summary measures showing time for patients to return to admission score (n = 46)
Group time series data (figure, table 5). Median EDSS scores demonstrated a gradual deterioration during the 12-month period, which was supported by a changing distribution of FS scores, particularly on the pyramidal, sensory, brainstem, and sphincter scales. Improvement was seen across all other measures during the inpatient stay. These gains declined in varying patterns after discharge. In disability and handicap, the FIM and LHS scores steadily lowered, remaining only marginally above baseline at the 9- and 12-month assessments. In contrast, the GHQ scores demonstrated sustained improvement during the entire 12 months. Improvement in the SF-36 scores peaked at 3 months in the physical dimension and at 6 months in the mental dimension.
Figure. Time series plots of the group scores for each outcome measure. (A) Neurological status. Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) ↑ scores indicate deterioration. (B) Disability. Functional Independence Measure (FIM) ↑ scores indicate improvement. (C) Handicap. London Handicap Scale (LHS) ↑ scores indicate improvement. (D) Emotional well-being. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) ↑ scores indicate deterioration. (E and F) Health-related quality of life, physical (E) and mental (F). 36-item Short Form Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36) ↑ scores indicate improvement.
Levels of performance in outcome variables at each assessment interval
Individual’s time series data.
Twenty-nine percent of patients demonstrated neurologic deterioration during the study, as defined by an unconfirmed increase of one EDSS point or more at the 12-month assessment.13 Fifty-one percent of patients whose FIM score improved (n = 41) peaked at discharge. Over the 12 months, 10 patients markedly deteriorated in functional performance (loss of ≥15 FIM points) between consecutive assessments. This coincided with a relapse in five patients and an appendectomy in one. Seventy-four percent of patients whose handicap improved (n = 35) peaked after discharge.
Patients reporting emotional disturbance (>5 GHQ points) decreased from 74% at admission to 47% at 12 months. Of these, the percentage reporting “markedly abnormal” levels of disturbance (≥15 GHQ points) decreased from 34% on admission to 15% at 12 months. In the SF-36 physical dimension, 54% of patients reported maximum scores at 3 months and 28.2% at 6 months. In contrast, in the mental dimension, 21% of patients peaked at 3 months, with most (61%) peaking at 6 months.
Discussion.
These results suggest that the improvements made in disability, handicap, HRQOL, and emotional well-being during a short period of inpatient rehabilitation declined over time but were maintained, in part, after discharge despite worsening neurologic status. Although, on average, changes were relatively small in each outcome, the distribution of changes was wide, suggesting that patients who improved were balanced by others who deteriorated. Individual data showed that the pattern of performance and duration of carry-over differed for each outcome and each individual; marked clinical improvements that were maintained throughout the study occurred in some individuals. Interpretation of these data should be made with some caution; estimates of the duration of carry-over are imprecise (as evidenced by the wide 95% CIs), and the data are uncontrolled.
Outcome and summary measures.
The neurologic status of the group declined over the study period. This may be partly accounted for by a selection bias. Patients were in the more advanced stages of MS, had a range of complex interrelated disabilities,14 and were frequently referred because of recent deterioration.4 The severity and range of disabilities experienced by this sample were typical of other MS rehabilitation studies,15-17 as was the overall improvement in disability seen at discharge.15-21
Average disability scores showed a peak at discharge and then a slow deterioration with time. This pattern is unsurprising. First, the progressive nature of MS means that deterioration over time is the norm. Second, the rehabilitation environment is specifically designed to maximize patients’ performance; suitable aids and equipment are available, and the staff offer advice and encouragement and are experienced in facilitating patients, both physically and emotionally. Many of these factors may not completely transfer to the home environment. Furthermore, patients often reported that tasks were completed by the caregiver(s) for ease and speed, even though they could perform the task themselves. The FIM scoring method requires that the patient be assessed on performance, not capability; scores therefore reflected what the patients actually did (or were allowed to do) in the community rather than what they were capable of achieving. This may further explain why higher scores were achieved in the rehabilitation environment.
Although the paucity of research in MS rehabilitation makes it difficult to compare the handicap of this sample with others, some common features are apparent. For example, as with others, mobility, occupation, and physical independence were most affected,22 and levels of unemployment were high (76%).22,23 Further improvements in level of handicap occurred in 77% of patients after discharge, supporting results of an earlier study that demonstrated continued improvements in handicap 3 months after discharge.17 Our results indicate that additional improvements can occur over an even longer period of time, supporting the argument for long-term community-based studies.7
The data for HRQOL are difficult to interpret. Their definition and measurement are far more complex than impairment and disability (for which a relatively precise quantification of performance can be undertaken), and they are influenced by a wide variety of social and environmental factors.24 Proposed explanations for these results are therefore speculative. Lower levels of health were reported in every SF-36 dimension compared with normative values for the healthy British population25 and the general US population.8 Similar to other MS samples, the dimensions most affected were physical functioning and role limitations.25,26 Both the group and individual data demonstrated that the SF-36 physical and mental components behaved differently. This is predictable because the components were designed to measure different concepts,8 which could be expected to change at a variable rate.7
Most patients demonstrated sustained improvements in emotional well-being throughout the study. No previous rehabilitation studies have monitored emotional well-being over the long term; however, our findings at discharge support previous data.27 It is interesting to postulate why this sustained improvement occurred. Rehabilitation differs from many medical specialties in that it is an active process of education whereby the disabled persons acquire and use knowledge and skills to optimize their physical, psychological, and social function.28 Studies demonstrate that emotional distress is associated with perceived control over health outcomes.29 Some suggest the educational processes of rehabilitation empower patients to become more actively involved in their health and welfare needs, thereby increasing their perceived control.30 Our experience supports this. Alternative explanations also exist. Emotional distress is associated with physical disability.31 The reduction in disability that occurred could partly account for improvements in emotional well-being, at least in some individuals. Furthermore, the additional and regular attention received throughout this study may have resulted in improved well-being. All these factors may interact.
A range of additional hospital and community services was recommended after discharge. In our experience, the strength of the support system to which patients return has a direct impact on the long-term success of the rehabilitation program. This is an important but neglected area of research and one that will be discussed in a subsequent article.
Evaluation of methodology.
Ideally, a control group would have been incorporated. Ethical and logistic considerations mean that this type of study is not well-suited to a controlled design.32 Consequently, a randomized controlled trial, investigating outcome in the short term, was undertaken in parallel,1 providing complementary information to aid interpretation of results.
The generalizability of this study is limited; all subjects were in the progressive phase of MS, all were moderately or severely disabled, and data were acquired from one unit. There is no assurance that our observations will apply to groups free of these selection biases. However, the characteristics of this sample are similar to those in other rehabilitation studies,15,16 suggesting it is representative of patients with MS undergoing rehabilitation.
No trial, particularly if it is longitudinal in design, can be isolated from extraneous factors. Additional confounding factors include the variable, unpredictable, and generally progressive nature of the disease course and the influence of social and environmental factors other than rehabilitation intervention. Key confounding variables were therefore recorded and will subsequently be reported.
Missing data are a problem common in longitudinal studies.8 The follow-up rate of this study (88%) is considered high. Details of all patients with incomplete data were recorded. Because they were among the most severely disabled, all available information was included at each time point to minimize bias.
Clinical implications.
These results suggest that formal and structured links between the rehabilitation setting and community services are needed to achieve and carry over many rehabilitation goals. This finding is in agreement with a number of reports28 and surveys33 of people with MS. Inpatient rehabilitation should not be viewed in isolation. Continuity of care is required between different settings to ensure that inpatient rehabilitation does not increase fragmentation of services, but serves to focus elements into an integrated system of comprehensive care that responds to the ever-changing needs of the patient.
No guidelines exist regarding the optimal time to review patients after discharge.34 Currently decisions are made on a clinical basis. These results suggest that review of patients is necessary because the benefits gained decline over time, and readmission for further rehabilitation may be necessary as new problems arise. The summary measures indicate that, in general, 6 months may be the most relevant time for review because this was when performance declined to the baseline level in most of the outcomes. The individual data, however, highlight that rigid guidelines are inappropriate, thus supporting the argument that services must be flexible and responsive to individual needs.17,33,34
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the staff at the Neurorehabilitation Unit and Sarah Brocklehurst at the Computing and Statistics Department of the Institute of Neurology for her advice with regard to the statistical analyses.
- Received February 9, 1998.
- Accepted June 25, 1998.
References
- ↵
- ↵
Poser CM, Paty DW, Scheinberg L, et al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis : guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol 1983;3;227–231.
- ↵
Lublin FD, Reingold SC for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society (USA) Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of New Agents in Multiple Sclerosis. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis : results of an international survey. Neurology 1996;46:907–911.
- ↵
Johnson J, Thompson AJ. Rehabilitation in a neuroscience centre : the role of expert assessment and selection. Br J Ther Rehabil 1996;3:303–308.
- ↵
Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis : an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983;33:1444–1452.
- ↵
- ↵
Harwood RH, Ebrahim S. Manual of the London Handicap Scale. Nottingham:University of Nottingham, Department of Health Care of the Elderly, 1995.
- ↵
Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: manual and interpretation guide. Boston:The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre, 1993.
- ↵
- ↵
La Rocca NG, Kalb RC. Efficacy of rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Rehabil 1992;6:147–155.
- ↵
Mathews JNS, Altman DG, Campbell MJ, Royston P. Analysis of serial measurements in medical research. BMJ 1990;300:230–235.
- ↵
SPSS Incorporated. SPSS for Windows: base system user’s guide. Release 6.0. Chicago: SPSS, 1993.
- ↵
Weinshenker BG, Issa M, Baskerville J. Meta-analysis of the placebo-treated groups in clinical trials of progressive MS. Neurology 1996;46:1613–1619.
- ↵
- ↵
Francabandera FL, Holland NJ, Wiesel-Levison P, Scheinberg LC. Multiple sclerosis rehabilitation : inpatient versus outpatient. Rehabil Nursing 1988;13:251–253.
- ↵
Aisen ML, Sevilla D, Fox N. Inpatient rehabilitation for multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Rehabil 1996;10:43–46.
- ↵
Kidd D, Thompson AJ. A prospective study of neurorehabilitation in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1997;62:423–424.
-
Feigenson JS, Scheinberg L, Catalano M, et al. The cost-effectiveness of multiple sclerosis rehabilitation : a model. Neurology 1981;31:1316–1322.
- ↵
Kidd D, Howard RS, Losseff NA, Thompson AJ. The benefit of inpatient neurorehabilitation in multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil 1995;9:198–203.
- ↵
- ↵
Harvey C. Economic costs of multiple sclerosis: how much and who pays? New York:National Multiple Sclerosis Society Research and Medical Programs, 1995.
- ↵
Pfennings LEMA, Cohen L, Van der Ploeg HM. How do you measure and influence quality of life in multiple sclerosis. In: Thompson AJ, Polman CO, Hohlfeld R, eds. MS: clinical challenges and controversies. London:Martin Dunitz, 1997:295–311.
- ↵
Freeman JA, Langdon DW, Hobart JC, Thompson AJ. Health-related quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis undergoing inpatient rehabilitation. J Neurol Rehab 1996;3:185–194.
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
European Federation of Neurological Societies.Task force document on standards in neurological rehabilitation. Eur J Neurol 1997;4:325–331.
- ↵
Shnek ZM, Foley FW, LaRocca NG, Smith CR, Halper J. Psychological predictors of depression in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Rehabil 1995;9:15–23.
- ↵
MacLaren J. Rehabilitation through advocacy and empowerment. Br J Ther Rehabil 1996;3:492–497.
- ↵
- ↵
Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 1996;312:1215–1218.
- ↵
Thompson AJ, Johnston SR, Harrison J, Sheil R, Burnard S. Developing essential services for people with multiple sclerosis : a model for co-ordinated community care. MS Management 1997;4:11–18.
- ↵
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
You May Also be Interested in
Dr. Sevil Yaşar and Dr. Behnam Sabayan
► Watch
Related Articles
Alert Me
Recommended articles
-
Articles
Patient-centered outcomesTranslating clinical efficacy into benefits on health-related quality of lifeDeborah Miller, Richard A. Rudick, Michael Hutchinson et al.Neurology, April 26, 2010 -
Articles
Physical rehabilitation has a positive effect on disability in multiple sclerosis patientsA. Solari, G. Filippini, P. Gasco et al.Neurology, January 01, 1999 -
Article
Poststroke spasticitySequelae and burden on stroke survivors and caregiversRichard D. Zorowitz, Patrick J. Gillard, Michael Brainin et al.Neurology, January 14, 2013 -
Articles
Health-related quality-of-life improvements in CIDP with immune globulin IV 10%The ICE StudyI.S.J. Merkies, V. Bril, M. C. Dalakas et al.Neurology, April 13, 2009