We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Job loss is common in multiple sclerosis (MS) and frequently associated with depression, fatigue, and cognitive dysfunction. Identifying these modifiable risk factors and providing “at-risk” women with a neuropsychologically-based intervention may improve employment outcomes. Our study seeks to investigate the utility of a neuropsychologically-based intervention with varying levels of treatment and follow-up, and evaluate treatment and employment outcomes among groups.
Method:
In this longitudinal, quasi-randomized controlled trial, employed women with MS meeting criteria on screening measures were considered “at-risk” for job instability and randomized to one of two neuropsychological testing interventions (standard-care group received testing and phone feedback of results and recommendations; experimental group received testing and in-person feedback with subsequent care-coordinator calls from a nurse to help coordinate recommendation completion). Participants who did not meet criteria were considered “low-risk” and only followed over time.
Results:
56 women in the treatment groups (standard-care = 23; experimental = 33) and 63 women in the follow-only group were analyzed at 1 year. Rates of decreased employment were similar between standard-care (17.4%) and experimental (21.2%) groups (OR = .782, 95% CI .200–3.057). However, the experimental group completed significantly more treatment recommendations, t(53) = −3.237, p = .002. Rates of decreased employment were also similar between the “low-risk” (17.5%) and “at-risk” groups (19.6%), (OR = .721, 95% CI .285–1.826).
Conclusion:
Employment outcomes were similar at 1 year between treatment groups receiving differing levels of a neuropsychologically-based intervention, however treatment adherence significantly improved in the experimental group. Treatment groups also had similar employment outcomes as compared to a “low-risk,” no intervention group, suggesting that engaging in either neuropsychological intervention may have impacted job stability.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.