Quality of Life Research

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 1363–1374 | Cite as

An assessment of the feasibility and utility of the MS Symptom and Impact Diary (MSSID)



The Multiple Sclerosis Symptom and Impact Diary (MSSID) was developed to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the impact of multiple sclerosis (MS) on HRQoL for use in clinical practice. This paper reports on an assessment of its feasibility and utility in two outpatient samples of people with MS (n=13 and n=63) using quantitative and qualitative methods. The response rate in study 2 was 82% and 83% of days were fully completed. Most respondents found the MSSID easy to understand and got into the habit of completing it. Missing items increased over time and those who experienced a relapse had more missing items than those who did not but there was no difference in the number of missed days. Some respondents found completing the MSSID enabled them to manage their lives more effectively and provided useful information to their neurologist. It is concluded that the MSSID is feasible for people with MS to complete and some may find the MSSID helpful as a tool to monitor their condition. Further research is needed to examine clinicians’ perceptions of the feasibility and utility of the MSSID within clinical practice.


Feasibility Multiple sclerosis Qualitative Symptoms Utility 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Greenhalgh, J, Ford, H, Long, A, Hurst, K 2004The multiple sclerosis symptom and impact diary (MSSID): A new instrument to measure the day to day impact of multiple sclerosisJ Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry75577582CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parkin, D, Jacoby, A, McNamee, P, Miller, P, Thomas, S, Bates, D 2000Treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon beta: An appraisal of cost-effectiveness and quality of lifeJ Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry68144149CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ford, HL, Gerry, E, Tennant, A, Whalley, D, Haigh, R 2001Developing a disease-specific quality of life measure for people with multiple sclerosisClin Rehabil15247258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hobart, JC, Lamping, D, Fitzpatrick, R 2001The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29) a new patient based outcome measureBrain124962973CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robinson I, Hunter M, Neilson S. A Dispatch from the Front Line: The Views of People with MS about Their Needs. The Multiple Sclerosis Society 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baker, L 1998Sense making in multiple sclerosis: The information needs of people with MS during an acute exacerbationQual Health Res8106120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Juniper, EF, O’Byrne, PM, Ferrie, PJ, King, DR, Roberts, JN 2000Measuring asthma control.Clinic questionnaire or daily diary?Am J Resp Crit Care Med16213301334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Verbrugge, LM 1980Health diariesMed Care187395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sloan, JA, Loprinzi, CL, Novotny, PJ, Barton, DL, Lavasseur, BI, Windschitl, H 2001Methodological lessons learned from hot flash studiesJ Clin Oncol1942804290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Watson, L, Little, P, Moore, M, Warner, G, Williamson, I 2001Validation study of a diary for use in acute lower respiratory tract infectionFam Pract18553554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montgomery, GK, Reynolds, NC 1990Compliance, reliability, and validity of self-monitoring for physical disturbances of Parkinson’s disease.The Parkinson’s Symptom DiaryJ Nerv Ment Dis178636641CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fayers, P 1995MRC quality of life studies using a daily diary card – practical lessons learned from cancer trialsQual Life Res4343352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norman, G, McFarlane, A, Streiner, D, Neale, K 1982Health diaries: strategies for compliance and relations to other measuresMed Care20623629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maunsell, E, Allard, P, Dorval, M, Labbe, J 2000A brief pain diary for ambulatory patients with advanced cancer: Acceptability and validityCancer8823872397CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marinus, J, Visser, M, Stiggelbout, AM, Rabey, JM, Bonuccelli, U, Kraus, PH,  et al. 2002Activity-based diary for Parkinson’s diseaseClin Neuropharm254350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hyland, ME, Kenyon, CAP, Allen, R, Howarth, P 1993Diary keeping in asthma: Comparison of written and electronic methodsBMJ306487489CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stone, A, Shiffman, S, Schwartz, J, Borderick, J, Hufford, MR 2002Patient non-compliance with paper diariesBMJ32411931194CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stone, AA, Kessler, RC, Haythornthwaite, JA 1991Measuring daily events and experiences: Decisions for the researcherJ Pers59575607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Verbrugge, LM, Balaban, DJ 1989Patterns of change in disability and well beingMed Care27S128S147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sherliker, L, Steptoe, A 2000Coping with new treatments for cancer: A feasibility study of daily diary measuresPat Ed Couns401119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wit, R, Dam, F, Hanneman, M, Zandbelt, L, Buuren, A, der, HK,  et al. 1999Evaluation of the use of a pain diary in chronic cancer pain patients at homePain798999CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Griffiths, H, Jordan, S 1998Thinking of the future and walking back to normal: An exploratory study of patients’ experiences during recovery from lower limb fractureJ Adv Nurs2812761288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oleske, D, Heinze, S, Otte, D 1990The diary as a means of understanding the quality of persons with cancer receiving home nursing careCancer Nurs13158166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Allard, P, Maunsell, E, Labbe, J, Dorval, M 2001Educational interventions to improve cancer pain control: A systematic reviewJ Pall Med4191203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lublin, FD, Reingold, SC 1996Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: Results of an international surveyNeurology46907911CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ritchie, J, Spencer, L 1994

    Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research

    Bryman, ABurgess, RG eds. Analyzing Qualitative DataSageLondon
    Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oppenheim, AN 1992Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement3GowerLondonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sudman, S, Bradburn, NM 1982Asking QuestionsJossey-BassSan FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mallinson, S 2002Listening to respondents: A qualitative assessment of the Short Form 36 health status questionnaireSoc Sci Med541121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sprangers, MAG, Schwartz, CE 1999Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical modelSoc Sci Med4815071515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nelson, LM, Franklin, GM, Hanman, RF, Boteler, DL, Baum, M, Burks, JS 1988Referral bias in multiple sclerosis researchJ Clin Epidemiol41187192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ford, H, Gerry, E, Airey, CM, Vail, A, Johnson, MH, Williams, DRR 1998The prevalence of multiple sclerosis in Leeds Health Authority areaJ Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry64605610CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Richards, RG, Sampson, FC, Beard, SM, Tappenden, P 2002A review of the natural history and epidemiology of multiple sclerosis: Implications for resource allocation and health economic modelsHealth Technol Assess (Winchester, England)663Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schumacher, GA, Beebe, G, Kibler, RF, Kurland, RT, Kurtzke, JF, McDowell, F,  et al. 1965Problems of experimental trials of therapy of multiple sclerosis: Report by the panel on the evaluation of experimental trials of therapy in multiple sclerosisAnn N Y Acad Sci122552568CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jenkinson, C, Fitzpatrick, R, Garratt, A, Peto, V, Stewart-Brown, S 2001Can item response theory reduce patient burden when measuring health status in neurological disorders? Results from Rasch analysis of the SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10)J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry71220224CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Greenhalgh, J, Long, AF, Flynn, R 2005The use of patient reported outcome measures in clinical practice: lacking an impact or lacking a theory?Soc Sci Med60833843CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Care Practice R&D UnitUniversity of SalfordSalfordUK

Personalised recommendations