Trial Outcomes & Findings for Teleconference Fatigue Management for People With Multiple Sclerosis (NCT NCT00591721)

NCT ID: NCT00591721

Last Updated: 2013-02-28

Results Overview

Fatigue impact was measured using the "Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS)" (Fisk et al, 1994). This 40-item scale evaluates the construct of perceived impact of fatigue on everyday life. Respondents rate each statement using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (no problem) to 4 (extreme problem). A total score (range from 0 to 160) and three subscale scores (physical - 10 items, score range 0 to 40; psychosocial - 20 items, score range 0 to 80; cognitive - 10 items, score range 0-40) can be produced from participants' responses. Higher scores reflect greater fatigue impact. What is reported here is the mean individual differences in the 7 week post subscale scores minus the baseline subscale scores

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

NA

Target enrollment

190 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

baseline, 7 weeks (immediate post-intervention)

Results posted on

2013-02-28

Participant Flow

Recruitment occurred between November 2007 and April 2009 and involved the distribution of advertising through the MS Society and to Illinois residents participating in the NARCOMS volunteer MS patient registry.

190 individuals were enrolled in the study (i.e., signed consent forms), but 9 of them did not complete baseline measures. Therefore 181 continued through the study.

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure
Immediate Group
Participants assigned to this arm received the intervention (teleconference fatigue management) immediately after allocation.
Wait List
Participants assigned to this arm waited 6 weeks after allocation to receive the intervention (teleconference fatigue management)
Overall Study
STARTED
89
92
Overall Study
COMPLETED
68
70
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
21
22

Reasons for withdrawal

Reasons for withdrawal
Measure
Immediate Group
Participants assigned to this arm received the intervention (teleconference fatigue management) immediately after allocation.
Wait List
Participants assigned to this arm waited 6 weeks after allocation to receive the intervention (teleconference fatigue management)
Overall Study
Withdrawal by Subject
10
10
Overall Study
Lost to Follow-up
1
4
Overall Study
Intervention not received
10
8

Baseline Characteristics

Teleconference Fatigue Management for People With Multiple Sclerosis

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure
Immediate Group
n=89 Participants
Participants assigned to this arm received the intervention (teleconference fatigue management) immediately after allocation.
Wait List
n=92 Participants
Participants assigned to this arm waited 6 weeks after allocation to receive the intervention (teleconference fatigue management)
Total
n=181 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
0 Participants
n=7 Participants
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
82 Participants
n=5 Participants
83 Participants
n=7 Participants
165 Participants
n=5 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
7 Participants
n=5 Participants
9 Participants
n=7 Participants
16 Participants
n=5 Participants
Age Continuous
53.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.1 • n=5 Participants
53.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.7 • n=7 Participants
53.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.9 • n=5 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
73 Participants
n=5 Participants
70 Participants
n=7 Participants
143 Participants
n=5 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
16 Participants
n=5 Participants
22 Participants
n=7 Participants
38 Participants
n=5 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
89 participants
n=5 Participants
92 participants
n=7 Participants
181 participants
n=5 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: baseline, 7 weeks (immediate post-intervention)

Population: Intent-to-treat, imputation by maximum likelihood approach

Fatigue impact was measured using the "Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS)" (Fisk et al, 1994). This 40-item scale evaluates the construct of perceived impact of fatigue on everyday life. Respondents rate each statement using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (no problem) to 4 (extreme problem). A total score (range from 0 to 160) and three subscale scores (physical - 10 items, score range 0 to 40; psychosocial - 20 items, score range 0 to 80; cognitive - 10 items, score range 0-40) can be produced from participants' responses. Higher scores reflect greater fatigue impact. What is reported here is the mean individual differences in the 7 week post subscale scores minus the baseline subscale scores

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Immediate Group
n=89 Participants
Participants assigned to this arm received the intervention (teleconference fatigue management) immediately after allocation.
Wait List
n=92 Participants
Participants assigned to this arm waited 6 weeks after allocation to receive the intervention (teleconference fatigue management)
Change From Baseline in Subscale Scores of the Fatigue Impact Scale
Average Change in Physical Subscale Scores
-3.74 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.74
-1.22 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.24
Change From Baseline in Subscale Scores of the Fatigue Impact Scale
Average Change in Cognitive Subscale Score
-4.24 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.01
-1.11 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.18
Change From Baseline in Subscale Scores of the Fatigue Impact Scale
Average Change in Psychosocial Subscale Score
-8.39 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.66
-2.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 12.40

Adverse Events

Immediate Group

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Wait List

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Serious adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Other adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Additional Information

Marcia Finlayson, PhD

University of Illinois at Chicago

Phone: 312-996-4603

Results disclosure agreements

  • Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
  • Publication restrictions are in place