ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2024
Barriers for work in people with multiple sclerosis: a Norwegian cultural adaptation and validation of the short version of the multiple sclerosis work difficulties questionnaire.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Measurement Properties and Applications of WHODAS 2.0 in Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Status for and associations between disability, employment, barriers for work and health-related quality of life in individuals with multiple sclerosis: A cross-sectional study.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is associated with high rates of unemployment, and barriers for work are essential to identify in the regular follow-up of these people. The current study aimed to culturally adapt and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Multiple Sclerosis Work Difficulties Questionnaire-23 (MSWDQ-23). Methods: Following backward and forward translation, the Norwegian version of the MSWDQ-23 (MSWDQ-23NV) was completed by 229 people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Validity was evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis and by associating scores with employment status, disability, and health-related quality of life outcome measures. Convergent validity was checked by correlating MSWDQ-23 scores with alternative study measures. Internal consistencies were examined by Cronbach's alfa. Results: A good fit for the data was demonstrated for the MSWDQ-23NV in confirmatory factor analysis, with excellent internal consistencies also demonstrated for the full scale and its subscales (physical barriers, psychological/cognitive barriers, external barriers). The MSWDQ-23NV subscales were related in the expected direction to health-related quality of life outcome measures. While higher scores on the physical barriers subscale was strongly associated with higher levels of disability and progressive MS types, higher scores on all subscales were associated with not working in the past year. Discussion: The Norwegian MSWDQ-23 is an internally consistent and valid instrument to measure perceived work difficulties in persons with all types of MS in a Norwegian-speaking population. The MSWDQ-23NV can be considered a useful tool for health care professionals to assess self-reported work difficulties in persons with MS. The Norwegian MSWDQ-23 scale should be examined for test-retest reliability and considered implemented in the regular follow up at the MS-outpatient clinics in Norway to support employment maintenance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.