Cited by 38Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesCancer survivorship and carePsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The psychological impact of the unpredictability of multiple sclerosis: a qualitative literature meta-synthesis

Open access
Wilkinson, Hannah Rose, Nair, Roshan das·2013·British Journal of Neuroscience Nursing

Abstract

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a neurological condition characterised by an unpredictable nature. This characteristic is reported to be the largest challenge for individuals with the condition. Chronic illness literature highlights the psychological impact of unpredictability, but there is a paucity of research examining this concept in MS. Objectives: This systematic review aimed to explore the psychological impact of unpredictability in MS. Methods: A meta-synthesis was conducted. A total of 6 studies with 59 participants were reviewed and critically appraised. Themes relating to the psychological impact of unpredictability were extracted and synthesised. Results: A preliminary model of the unpredictability of MS was developed highlighting the different psychological impacts of diagnosis, remission and relapse. Conclusions: The psychological impact of unpredictability alters through diagnosis, remission and relapse. Further research is required to explore the experience of unpredictability in MS.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.12968/bjnn.2013.9.4.172

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Theoretical models of adjustment in MS were based on research mainly including people with relapsing-remitting MS or mixed samples, so the relevance of all predicting factors to people with progressive MS is not clear.

    “These models were based on research that mainly included people with relapsing-remitting MS or mixed samples of the MS population, so the relevance of all the predicting factors to people with progressive MS who may face different challenges and symptoms is not clear.”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Department of Health, 1992, Secretaries of State for Health Social Services, Scotland and Wales.
  2. Harper D, 2012, Qualitative Research Methods in Mental Health Psychotherapy: A Guide for Students and Practitioners., 83
  3. Mishel MHH, 1988, Nurs Res, 27, 98

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wilkinson, H. R., & Nair, R. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Lincoln (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
Venue
British Journal of Neuroscience Nursing
Published
2013-08
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
172-178
ISSN
  • 1747-0307 (ISSN-L)
  • 2052-2800
OpenAlex
W2028762953
Cited by
38
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3
FWCI
1.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • British Journal of Neuroscience Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, unpredictability, psychological impact, chronic disease, diagnosis, remission, relapse, lived experience

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