Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Personal Resources in Patients Who Differently Estimate the Impact of Multiple Sclerosis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background

Discrepancies between physicians’ assessment and patients’ subjective representations of the disease severity may influence physician-patient communication and management of a chronic illness, such as multiple sclerosis (MS). For these reasons, it is important to recognize factors that distinguish patients who differently estimate the impact of MS.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to verify if the patients who overestimate or underestimate the impact of MS differ in their perception of personal resources from individuals presenting with a realistic appraisal of their physical condition.

Methods

A total of 172 women and 92 men diagnosed with MS completed Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale, University of Washington Self Efficacy Scale, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Body Esteem Scale, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire, Treatment Beliefs Scale, Actually Received Support Scale, and Socioeconomic resources scale. Physician’s assessment of health status was determined with Expanded Disability Status Scale.

Results

Linear regression analysis was conducted to identify the subsets of patients with various patterns of subjective health and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores. Patients overestimating the impact of their disease presented with significantly lower levels of self-esteem, self-efficacy in MS, and body esteem; furthermore, they perceived their condition more threatening than did realists and underestimators. They also assessed anti-MS treatment worse, had less socioeconomic resources, and received less support than underestimators. Additionally, underestimators presented with significantly better perception of their disease, self, and body than did realists.

Conclusion

Self-assessment of MS-related symptoms is associated with specific perception of personal resources in coping with the disease. These findings may facilitate communication with patients and point to new directions for future research on adaptation to MS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Asimakopoulou KG, Skinner TC, Spimpolo J, Marsh S, Fox C. Unrealistic pessimism about risk of coronary heart disease and stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes. Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 71(1): 95–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Beckham JC, Rice JR, Talton SL, Helms MJ, Young LD. Relationship of cognitive constructs to adjustment in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Cogn Ther Res. 1994; 18: 479–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Broadbent E, Petrie KJ, Main J, Weinman J. The brief illness perception questionnaire. J Psychosom Res. 2006; 60: 631–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown, ES, Khan, DA, Nejtek, VA. The psychiatric side effects of corticosteroids. Ann Allerg Asthma Im. 1999; 83(6): 495–504.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cervone D. The architecture of personality. Psychol Rev. 2004; 111(1): 183–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cervone D. Personality architecture: Within-person structures and processes. Ann Rev Psychol. 2005; 56: 423–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cervone D, Mor N, Orom H, Shadel WG, Scott WD. Self-efficacy beliefs and the architecture of personality. In: Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, eds. Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. Guilford Press, New York; 2004: 188–210.

  8. Costelloe L, O’Rourke K, Kearney H, et al. The patient knows best: significant change in the physical component of the multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29 physical). J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007; 78: 841–844.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. de Ridder D, Fournier M, Bensing J. Does optimism affect symptom report in chronic disease?: What are its consequences for self-care behaviour and physical functioning? J Psychosom Res. 2004; 56(3): 341–350.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Feldman PJ, Cohen S, Doyle WL, Skoner DP, Gwaltney JM. The impact of personality on the reporting of unfounded symptoms and illness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999; 77: 370–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Forbes A, While A, Mathes L, Griffiths P. Health problems and health-related quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil. 2006; 20(1): 67–78.

  12. Fournier M, de Ridder D, Bensing J. Optimism and adaptation to multiple sclerosis: What does optimism mean? J Behav Med. 1999; 22(4): 303–326.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fournier M, de Ridder, D, Bensing, J. How optimism contributes to the adaptation of chronic illness. A prospective study into the enduring effects of optimism on adaptation moderated by the controllability of chronic illness. Pers Indiv Differ. 2002; 33(7): 1163–1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Franzoi SL, Shields SA. The body esteem scale: multidimensional structure and sex differences in a college population. J Person Assess. 1984; 48(2): 173–178.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gallo LC, Smith TW, Cox CM. Socioeconomic status, psychosocial processes, and perceived health: An interpersonal perspective. Ann Behav Med. 2006, 31(2):109–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gonder-Frederick LA, Cox D J. Symptom perception, symptom beliefs, and blood glucose discrimination in the self-treatment of insulin-dependent diabetes. In: Skelton JA, Croyle RT, eds. Mental representation in health and illness. Springer US; 1991: 220–246.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Gray OM, McDonnell GV, Hawkins SA. Tried and tested: the psychometric properties of the multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) in a population-based study. Mult Scler. 2009; 15(1): 75–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hobart J, Freeman J, Thompson A. Kurtzke scales revisited: the application of psychometric methods to clinical intuition. Brain. 2000; 123: 1027–1040.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hobart J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, et al. The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain. 2001; 124: 962–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hoogervorst EL, Zwemmer J, Jelles B, Polman CH, Uitdehaag BM. Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): Relation to established measures of impairment and disability. Mult Scler. 2004; 10(5): 569–574.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. http://uwcorr.washington.edu/publications/SES_MSversion_Final_Scales_Distribute.pdf Accessibility verified January 14, 2016.

  22. Jopson NM, Moss-Morris R. The role of illness severity and illness representations in adjusting to multiple sclerosis. J Psychosom Res. 2003; 54(6): 503–511.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kragt, JJ, Nielsen, JM, Van Der Linden, FAH, Polman, CH, Uitdehaag, BMJ. Disease progression in multiple sclerosis: Combining physicians’ and patients’ perspectives? Mult Scler J. 2011; 17(2): 234–240.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983; 33: 1444–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lublin FD, Reingold SC. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis results of an international survey. Neurology. 1996; 46(4): 907–911.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McGuigan C, Hutchinson M. The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) is a reliable and sensitive measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004; 75(2): 266–269.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Miglioretti M, Mazzini L, Oggioni GD, Testa L, Monaco F. Illness perceptions, mood and health-related quality of life in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Psychosom Res. 2008; 65(6): 603–609.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mora PA, Halm E, Leventhal H, Ceric F. Elucidating the relationship between negative affectivity and symptoms: The role of illness-specific affective responses. Ann Behav Med. 2007; 34(1):77–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Murray TJ. The psychosocial aspects of multiple sclerosis. Neurol Clin. 1995; 13: 197–223.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pennebaker, JW. The psychology of physical symptoms. New York: Springer; 1982.

  31. Pennebaker JW. Psychological factors influencing the reporting of physical symptoms. In: Stone AA, Turkkan JS, Bachrach CA, Jobe JB, Kurtzman HS, Cain Vs, eds. The science of self-report: Implications for research and practice. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000: 299–315.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Pennebaker, JW, Brittingham, GL. Environmental and sensory cues affecting the perception of physical symptoms. In: Baum, A, Singer, JE, eds. Advances in Environmental Psychology: Environmental Health. New York: Erlbaum, Hillsdale; 1982.

  33. Petrie, KJ, Weinman, JA. Perceptions of health and illness: current research and applications. Amsterdam: Taylor and Francis; 1997.

  34. Phillips, MM, Cornell, CE, Raczynski, JM, Gilliland, MJ. Symptom Perception. In: Raczynski, JM, DiClemente, RJ, eds. Handbook of health promotion and disease prevention. Springer Science & Business Media; 2013: 75–94.

  35. Reed GM, Kemeny ME, Taylor SE, Visscher BR. Negative HIV Specific expectancies and AIDS-related bereavement as predictors of symptom onset in asymptomatic HIV-positive gay men. Health Psychol. 1999; 18: 354–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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: 701/704.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Riazi A, Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson AJ. Evidence-based measurement in multiple sclerosis: The psychometric properties of the physical and psychological dimensions of three quality of life rating scales. Mult Scler. 2003; 9: 411–419.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ridder, D, Schreurs, K, Bensing, J. The relative benefits of being optimistic: Optimism as a coping resource in multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease. Brit J Health Psych. 2000; 5(2): 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press; 1989.

  40. Rudick RA, Miller D, Clough JD, Gragg LA, Farmer RG. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol. 1992; 49: 1237–1242.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schandry R, Leopold C, Vogt M. Symptom reporting in asthma patients and insulin-dependent diabetics. Biol Psychol. 1996; 42: 231–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Schulz U, Schwarzer R. Soziale Unterstu¨tzung bei der Krankheitsbewa¨ltigung. Die Berliner Social Support Skalen (BSSS) [Social support in coping with illness: the Berlin Social Support Scales (BSSS)]. Diagnostica. 2003; 49: 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Senn TE, Walsh JL, Carey MP. The mediating roles of perceived stress and health behaviors in the relation between objective, subjective, and neighborhood socioeconomic status and perceived health. Ann Behav Med. 2014; 48(2):215–224.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Sharrack B, Hughes RA, Soudain S, Dunn G. The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. Brain. 1999; 122: 141–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Spain LA, Tubridy N, Kilpatrick TJ, Adams SJ, Holmes ACN. Illness perception and health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand. 2007; 116(5): 293–299.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Spiegel, JS, Leake, B, Speigel, TM, et al. What are we measuring? An examination of self-reported functional status measures. Arth Rheum. 1988; 31: 721–728.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Stokes R, Frederick-Recascino C. Women’s perceived body image: Relations with personal happiness. J Women Aging. 2003; 15(1): 17–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Strupp, J, Hartwig, A, Golla, H, Galushko, M, Pfaff, H, Voltz, R. Feeling severely affected by Multiple Sclerosis: What does this mean? Palliative Med. 2012; 26(8): 1001–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Taylor SE, Brown JD. Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychol Bull. 1988; 103: 193–210.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Thomas, CD, Freeman, RJ. The body esteem scale: Construct validity of the female subscales. J Person Assess. 1990; 54: 204–212.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Turner RJ, Lloyd DA, Roszell P. Personal resources and the social distribution of depression. Am J Community Psychol. 1999, 27:643–672.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Watson D, Pennebaker JW. Situational, dispositional, and genetic bases of symptom reporting. In: Skelton JA, Croyle RT, eds. Mental representations in health and illness. New York: Springer; 1991: 60–84.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Weinstein ND. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980; 39: 806–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Willoughby EW, Paty DW. Scales for rating impairment in multiple sclerosis: a critique. Neurology. 1988; 38: 1793–1798.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to gratefully acknowledge all the individuals with multiple sclerosis who completed a questionnaire, Dr. Mariusz Kowalewski, the manager of the Multiple Sclerosis Rehabilitation Centre in Borne Sulinowo and Mrs. Danuta Lawniczak from the Polish Society of Multiple Sclerosis for their help in the enrollment of the study participants, and Mrs. Magdalena Lewandowska for her assistance in statistical analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Culture of People with Disabilities, University School of Physical Education, ul. Królowej Jadwigi 27/39, 61-871, Poznan, Poland

    Maciej Wilski PhD

  2. Department of Physiotherapy and Knowledge about Health, State University of Applied Sciences, Konin, Poland

    Maciej Wilski PhD & Maciej Tomczak PhD

  3. Department of Psychology, University School of Physical Education, Poznan, Poland

    Maciej Tomczak PhD

Authors
  1. Maciej Wilski PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maciej Tomczak PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maciej Wilski PhD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding Information

ᅟ

Source of Financial Support

This study was supported by the University School of Physical Education, Poznan, Poland funds.

Statement of Conflict of Interest and Adherence to Ethical Standards The authors warrant that the article is original, written by stated author/s, has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, and does not infringe the rights of others and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author/s. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

The authors declare that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements) or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilski, M., Tomczak, M. Comparison of Personal Resources in Patients Who Differently Estimate the Impact of Multiple Sclerosis. ann. behav. med. 51, 179–188 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9841-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9841-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation