Cited by 209Digital Mental Health InterventionsMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesCancer survivorship and care

A pilot randomised controlled trial of an Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy self-management programme (MS Invigor8) for multiple sclerosis fatigue

Moss-Morris, Rona, McCrone, Paul, Yardley, Lucy, van Kessel, Kirsten, Wills, Gary, Dennison, Laura·2012·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

The majority of people affected by Multiple Sclerosis (paMS) experience severe and disabling fatigue. A recent randomised controlled trial (RCT) showed that cognitive behaviour therapy with a clinical psychologist was an effective treatment for MS fatigue. An Internet-based version of this intervention, MS Invigor8, was developed for the current study using agile design and input from paMS. MS Invigor8 includes eight tailored, interactive sessions. The aim was to test the feasibility and potential efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the programme in a pilot RCT. 40 patients were randomised to MS Invigor8 (n=23) or standard care (n=17). The MS Invigor8 group accessed sessions over 8-10 weeks and received up to three 30-60min telephone support sessions. Participants completed online standardised questionnaires assessing fatigue, mood, quality of life and service use at baseline and 10 weeks follow-up. Large between group treatment effects were found for the primary outcomes of fatigue severity (d=1.19) and impact (d=1.02). The MS Invigor8 group also reported significantly greater improvements in anxiety, depression and quality-adjusted life years. These data suggest that Internet-based CBT may be a clinically and cost-effective treatment for MS fatigue. A larger RCT with longer term follow-up is warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2012.03.001

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moss-Morris, R., McCrone, P., Yardley, L., van Kessel, K., Wills, G., & Dennison, L.
Affiliations
  • Guy's Hospital (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Moss-Morris, Rona
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-06
Volume
50
Issue
6
Pages
415-421
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068642589
Cited by
209
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
16.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Multiple Sclerosis Society
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, fatigue, cognitive behavioral therapy, online intervention, self-management program, feasibility, cost-effectiveness, anxiety, depression, quality of life, telephone support
MeSH terms
Adult, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Fatigue, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Patient Compliance, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Self Care, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Remote Consultation, Internet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review