Strengthening Mental Abilities with Relational Training (SMART) in multiple sclerosis (MS): study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial

Nima Golijani-Moghaddam, David L Dawson, Nikos Evangelou, James Turton, Annie Hawton, Graham R Law, Bryan Roche, Elise Rowan, Rupert Burge, Alexandra C Frost, Roshan das Nair, Nima Golijani-Moghaddam, David L Dawson, Nikos Evangelou, James Turton, Annie Hawton, Graham R Law, Bryan Roche, Elise Rowan, Rupert Burge, Alexandra C Frost, Roshan das Nair

Abstract

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic condition of the central nervous system, affecting around 1 in every 600 people in the UK, with 130 new diagnoses every week. Cognitive difficulties are common amongst people with MS, with up to 70% experiencing deficits in higher-level brain functions-such as planning and problem-solving, attention, and memory. Cognitive deficits make it difficult for people with MS to complete everyday tasks and limit their abilities to work, socialise, and live independently. There is a clear need-and recognised research priority-for treatments that can improve cognitive functioning in people with MS. The absence of effective cognitive interventions exacerbates burdens on the services accessed by people with MS-requiring these services to manage sequelae of untreated cognitive deficits, including reduced quality of life, greater disability and dependence, and poorer adherence to disease-modifying treatments. Our planned research will fill the evidence gap through developing-and examining the feasibility of trialling-a novel online cognitive rehabilitation programme for people with MS (SMART). The SMART programme directly trains relational skills (the ability to flexibly relate concepts to one another) based on theory that these skills are critical to broader cognitive functioning.

Methods: The primary objective of this study aims to conduct a feasibility study to inform the development of a definitive trial of SMART for improving cognitive functioning in people with MS. The secondary objective is to develop the framework for a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a definitive trial, and the exploratory objective is to assess the signal of efficacy.

Discussion: As a feasibility trial, outcomes are unlikely to immediately effect changes to NHS practice. However, this is a necessary step towards developing a definitive trial-and will give us a signal of efficacy, a prerequisite for progression to a definitive trial. If found to be clinically and cost-effective, the latter trial could create a step-change in MS cognitive rehabilitation-improving service delivery and optimising support with limited additional resources.

Trial registration: Registration ID: ClnicalTrials.gov: NCT04975685-registered on July 23rd, 2021.

Protocol version: 2.0, 25 November 2021.

Keywords: Cognitive rehabilitation; Feasibility randomised controlled trial; Multiple sclerosis; Relational training.

Conflict of interest statement

BR was involved in developing the SMART software. The authors declare that they have no other competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Examples of SMART training tasks of varying complexity

References

    1. MS Trust. Prevalence and incidence of multiple sclerosis. MS Trust. 2020. Available from: .
    1. Chiaravalloti ND, DeLuca J. Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7(12):1139–1151. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70259-X.
    1. Dorning H, Luck G, Holloway E. A lottery of treatment and care - MS services across the UK. MS Society; 2013.
    1. Rao SM. Neuropsychology of multiple sclerosis. Curr Opin Neurol. 1995;8(3):216–220. doi: 10.1097/00019052-199506000-00010.
    1. Croft A, Mynors G, Roberts M, Doncaster D, Bowen A, Trust MS. MS forward view: A consensus for the future of MS services. Mult Scler Trust. 2016;9:S5–S48.
    1. Bagert B, Camplair P, Bourdette D. Cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs. 2002;16(7):445–455. doi: 10.2165/00023210-200216070-00002.
    1. Multiple Sclerosis International Foundation (MSIF). Global Economic Impact of Multiple Sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis International Foundation. 2010. Available from: .
    1. James Lind Alliance. Multiple Sclerosis Top 10 priorities. Oxford: The James Lind Alliance. 2019. Available from: .
    1. Hämäläinen P, Rosti-Otajärvi E. Cognitive impairment in MS: rehabilitation approaches. Acta Neurol Scand. 2016;134:8–13. doi: 10.1111/ane.12650.
    1. Niccolai C, Goretti B, Amato MP. Disease modifying treatments and symptomatic drugs for cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: where do we stand? Multiple Sclerosis Demyelinating Disord. 2017;2(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s40893-017-0025-3.
    1. Chiaravalloti ND, Genova HM, DeLuca J. Cognitive rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: the role of plasticity. Front Neurol. 2015;6:67. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2015.00067.
    1. das Nair R, Martin KJ, Lincoln NB. Memory rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;3:CD008754.
    1. Mitolo M, Venneri A, Wilkinson ID, Sharrack B. Cognitive rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. J Neurol Sci. 2015;354(1-2):1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2015.05.004.
    1. Goverover Y, Chiaravalloti ND, O'Brien AR, DeLuca J. Evidenced-based cognitive rehabilitation for persons with multiple sclerosis: an updated review of the literature from 2007 to 2016. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(2):390–407. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.07.021.
    1. Sumowski JF, Benedict R, Enzinger C, Filippi M, Geurts JJ, Hamalainen P, et al. Cognition in multiple sclerosis: State of the field and priorities for the future. Neurology. 2018;90(6):278–288. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004977.
    1. Lincoln NB, Bradshaw LE, Constantinescu CS, Day F, Drummond AE, Fitzsimmons D, et al. Group cognitive rehabilitation to reduce the psychological impact of multiple sclerosis on quality of life: the CRAMMS RCT. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England) 2020;24(4):1. doi: 10.3310/hta24040.
    1. Sala G, Aksayli ND, Tatlidil KS, Tatsumi T, Gondo Y, Gobet F. Near and far transfer in cognitive training: A second-order meta-analysis. Collabra: Psychology. 2019;5(1):18.
    1. McLoughlin S, Tyndall I, Pereira A. Relational Operant Skills Training Increases Standardized Matrices Scores in Adolescents: A Stratified Active-Controlled Trial. J Behav Educ. 2022;31:298–325.
    1. Ng NF, Schafer RJ, Simone CM, Osman AM. Perceptions of Brain Training: Public Expectations of Cognitive Benefits From Popular Activities. Front Hum Neurosci. 2020;14:15.
    1. Cassidy S, Roche B, Colbert D, Stewart I, Grey IM. A relational frame skills training intervention to increase general intelligence and scholastic aptitude. Learn Individ Differ. 2016;47:222–235. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.03.001.
    1. McLoughlin S, Tyndall I, Pereira A. Convergence of multiple fields on a relational reasoning approach to cognition. Intelligence. 2020;83:101491. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2020.101491.
    1. Barnes-Holmes SCHD, Roche B. Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. Springer Science & Business Media; 2001.
    1. Cassidy S, Roche B, Hayes SC. A relational frame training intervention to raise intelligence quotients: A pilot study. Psychol Rec. 2011;61(2):173–198. doi: 10.1007/BF03395755.
    1. Colbert D, Tyndall I, Roche B, Cassidy S. Can SMART training really increase intelligence? A replication study. J Behav Educ. 2018;27(4):509–531. doi: 10.1007/s10864-018-9302-2.
    1. May RJ, Tyndall I, McTiernan A, Roderique-Davies G, McLoughlin S. The impact of the SMART program on cognitive and academic skills: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Educ Technol. 2022;53:1244-61.
    1. Presti G, Torregrosssa S, Migliore D, Roche B, Cumbo E. Relational Training Intervention as add-on therapy to current specific treatments in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Psychol Neuosci. 2018;3:88–97.
    1. Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, Boyd KA, Craig N, French DP, McIntosh E, Petticrew M. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374:n2061.
    1. Van De Ven RM, Murre JM, Buitenweg JI, Veltman DJ, Aaronson JA, Nijboer TC, Kruiper-Doesborgh SJC, van Bennekom CAM, Ridderinkhof KR, Schmand B. The influence of computer-based cognitive flexibility training on subjective cognitive well-being after stroke: A multi-center randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2017;12(11).
    1. Cunningham JA, Kypri K, McCambridge J. Exploratory randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of a waiting list control design. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):150. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-150.
    1. Frost A, Golijani-Moghaddam N, Burge R, Dawson D, Evangelou N, Roche B, Turton J, Hawton A, Law G, Rowan E, das Nair R. Usability and acceptability of a cognitive training intervention (SMART) for people with multiple sclerosis (MS): A prefeasibility formative evaluation [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. NIHR Open Res. 2022;2(39).
    1. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687.
    1. Boot WR, Souders D, Charness N, Blocker K, Roque N, Vitale T. International Conference on Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Springer; 2016. The gamification of cognitive training: Older adults’ perceptions of and attitudes toward digital game-based interventions.
    1. Rabipour S, Morrison C, Crompton J, Petrucelli M, Germano MOG, Popescu A, Davidson, PSR. Few Effects of a 5-Week Adaptive Computerized Cognitive Training Program in Healthy Older Adults. J Cognitive Enhance. 2020;4:258-73.
    1. Souders DJ, Boot WR, Blocker K, Vitale T, Roque NA, Charness N. Evidence for narrow transfer after short-term cognitive training in older adults. Front Aging Neurosci. 2017;9:41. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00041.
    1. Shatil E, Metzer A, Horvitz O, Miller A. Home-based personalized cognitive training in MS patients: a study of adherence and cognitive performance. NeuroRehabilitation. 2010;26(2):143–153. doi: 10.3233/NRE-2010-0546.
    1. Hertzog MA. Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies. Res Nurs Health. 2008;31(2):180–191. doi: 10.1002/nur.20247.
    1. Julious SA. Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm Stat. 2005;4(4):287–291. doi: 10.1002/pst.185.
    1. Whitehead AL, Julious SA, Cooper CL, Campbell MJ. Estimating the sample size for a pilot randomised trial to minimise the overall trial sample size for the external pilot and main trial for a continuous outcome variable. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;25(3):1057–1073. doi: 10.1177/0962280215588241.
    1. Sullivan MJ, Edgley K, Dehoux E. A survey of multiple sclerosis: I. Perceived cognitive problems and compensatory strategy use. Canadian. J Rehabil. 1990;4(2):99-105.
    1. Marrie RA, Chelune GJ, Miller DM, Cohen JA. Subjective cognitive complaints relate to mild impairment of cognition in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J. 2005;11(1):69–75. doi: 10.1191/1352458505ms1110oa.
    1. Randolph JJ, Randolph JS, Wishart HA. Association Between Cognitive Complaints and Vulnerability to Environmental Distraction in Multiple Sclerosis. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2017;32(1):21–28. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acw096.
    1. Smith A. Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). Manual (Revised) Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services; 1982.
    1. Benedict RH, DeLuca J, Phillips G, LaRocca N, Hudson LD, Rudick R. Validity of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test as a cognition performance outcome measure for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2017;23(5):721–733. doi: 10.1177/1352458517690821.
    1. Strober L, Bruce J, Arnett P, Alschuler K, Lebkuecher A, Di Benedetto M, et al. A new look at an old test: Normative data of the symbol digit modalities test–Oral version. Multiple Sclerosis Relat Disord. 2020;43:102154. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102154.
    1. Randolph C. RBANS update: Repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status. PsychCorp; 2012.
    1. Spencer RJ, Kitchen Andren KA, Tolle KA. Development of a scale of executive functioning for the RBANS. Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2018;25(3):231–236. doi: 10.1080/23279095.2017.1284664.
    1. Duff K, Patton D, Schoenberg MR, Mold J, Scott JG, Adams RL. Age-and education-corrected independent normative data for the RBANS in a community dwelling elderly sample. Clin Neuropsychol. 2003;17(3):351–366. doi: 10.1076/clin.17.3.351.18082.
    1. Sepulcre J, Vanotti S, Hernández R, Sandoval G, Cáceres F, Garcea O, et al. Cognitive impairment in patients with multiple sclerosis using the Brief Repeatable Battery-Neuropsychology test. Mult Scler J. 2006;12(2):187–195. doi: 10.1191/1352458506ms1258oa.
    1. Davis A, Williams RN, Gupta AS, Finch WH, Randolph C. Evaluating neurocognitive deficits in patients with multiple sclerosis via a brief neuropsychological approach. Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2015;22(5):381–387. doi: 10.1080/23279095.2014.949717.
    1. Dong Y, Thompson CL, Tan SHJ, Lim LBS, Pang W, Chen CLH. Test-retest reliability, convergent validity and practice effects of the RBANS in a memory clinic setting: a pilot study. Open J Med Psychol. 2013;2(4):11-16.
    1. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092–1097. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.
    1. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–613. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x.
    1. Terrill AL, Hartoonian N, Beier M, Salem R, Alschuler K. The 7-item generalized anxiety disorder scale as a tool for measuring generalized anxiety in multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2015;17(2):49–56. doi: 10.7224/1537-2073.2014-008.
    1. Patrick S, Connick P. Psychometric properties of the PHQ-9 depression scale in people with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0197943. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197943.
    1. Kroenke K, Wu J, Yu Z, Bair MJ, Kean J, Stump T, et al. The patient health questionnaire anxiety and depression scale (PHQ-ADS): Initial validation in three clinical trials. Psychosom Med. 2016;78(6):716–727. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000322.
    1. D’Souza E. Modified fatigue impact scale–5-item version (MFIS-5) Occup Med. 2016;66(3):256–257. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqv106.
    1. Meca-Lallana V, Brañas-Pampillón M, Higueras Y, Candeliere-Merlicco A, Aladro-Benito Y, Rodríguez-De la Fuente O, et al. Assessing fatigue in multiple sclerosis: Psychometric properties of the five-item Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS-5) Multiple Sclerosis J Exp Transl Clin. 2019;5(4):2055217319887987. doi: 10.1177/2055217319887987.
    1. Elliott R, Wagner J, Sales C, Rodgers B, Alves P, Café MJ. Psychometrics of the Personal Questionnaire: A client-generated outcome measure. Psychol Assess. 2016;28(3):263. doi: 10.1037/pas0000174.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–1108. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence . Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2013.
    1. Fisk J, Brown M, Sketris I, Metz L, Murray T, Stadnyk K. A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005;76(1):58–63. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2003.017897.
    1. Goodwin E, Green C. A Quality-Adjusted Life-Year Measure for Multiple Sclerosis: Developing a Patient-Reported Health State Classification System for a Multiple Sclerosis-Specific Preference-Based Measure. Value Health. 2015;18:1016–1024. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.07.002.
    1. Goodwin E, Green C, Spencer A. Estimating a Preference-Based Index for an Eight-Dimensional Health State Classification System for Multiple Sclerosis. Value Health. 2015;18:1025–1036. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.10.004.
    1. McGuigan C, Hutchinson M. The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) is a reliable and sensitive measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004;75(2):266–269.
    1. Al-Janabi HN, Flynn T, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: The ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(1):167–176. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9927-2.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The Social Care Guidance Manual. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2013. Available from: .
    1. Xu RH, Keetharuth AD, Wang L-L, Cheung AW-L, Wong EL-Y. Measuring health-related quality of life and well-being: a head-to-head psychometric comparison of the EQ-5D-5L, ReQoL-UI and ICECAP-A. Eur J Health Econ. 2022;23(2):165–176. doi: 10.1007/s10198-021-01359-0.
    1. Ridyard CH, D.A. Hughes, and D. Team Development of a database of instruments for resource-use measurement: purpose, feasibility, and design. Value Health. 2012;15(5):650–655. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.03.004.
    1. Thorn J, Brookes S, Ridyard C, Riley R, Hughes D, Wordsworth S, et al. Core Items for a Standardized Resource Use Measure (ISRUM): Expert Delphi Consensus Survey. Value Health. 2018;21(6):640–649. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.06.011.
    1. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8.
    1. Cook JA, Julious SA, Sones W, Hampson LV, Hewitt C, Berlin JA, Ashby D, Emsley R, Fergusson DA, Walters SJ, Wilson ECF, Maclennan G, Stallard N, Rothwell JC, Bland M, Brown L, Ramsay CR, Cook A, Armstrong D, Altman D, Vale LD. DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2018;363:k3750.
    1. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. Analyzing qualitative data. Routledge; 2002. pp. 187–208.
    1. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-117.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj