ArticleBMJ open2024
Workplace and social support, treatment satisfaction, and their impact on quality of life in Swedish women with multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional survey study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL), in relation to support from work, social, as well as treatment satisfaction, in women with multiple sclerosis (MS). Further, to predict the satisfaction on these support dimensions based on sociodemographic and clinical variables.
designCross-sectional survey: a web-based questionnaire conducted in 2021 of people with MS (PwMS) linked to Nationwide Swedish registers.
settingSweden.
participantsWorking women with MS, living in Sweden, aged 20-50 responding to the survey during the spring of 2021 (n=2967). OUTCOME MEASURES: Health-related quality of life was measured using the EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS). Linear regression models were applied to estimate the association between demographic and clinical factors, as well as reported survey answers with HRQoL. Odds of perceived satisfactory support in one, two or all three support dimensions (work, social or treatment) were performed with multinomial logistic regressions.
resultsLower MS severity and fatigue, higher cognitive processing speed, living in cities and higher educational attainment were individually associated with higher levels of HRQoL (p<0.001). Contrary, lower HRQoL was associated with progressive type of MS, self-reported visible or invisible symptoms, and no or unsatisfactory support from work, social and treatment (p<0.001). When explored altogether, higher levels in HRQoL were predominantly explained by lower MS severity (t=-9.318, p<0.001), less fatigue (t=-22.190, p<0.001) and more support from work (t=4.824, p<0.001) and to some extent, social support (t=-2.448, p=0.014). Further, compared with women who reported no support, those experiencing lower fatigue and receiving ongoing treatment were more likely to receive support in one or more of all three dimensions (work, social and satisfaction with their treatment). In contrast, higher HRQoL (OR=1.033; CI=1.015 to 1.052) was only significant when receiving simultaneous support from all three support dimensions.
conclusionClinical factors and support from work and social support are the strongest contributors to HRQoL in working women with MS. Further, support across several life dimensions is essential when assessing HRQoL. Particularly, satisfaction with the perceived support from work, which plays a crucial role in the HRQoL of women with MS. This underscores the importance of prioritising clinical management and strong support systems to significantly improve HRQoL outcomes in patients with MS.
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.