Cited by 57Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchCancer survivorship and careNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders Research

Mood as a predictor of disability and survival in patients newly diagnosed with ALS/MND

Johnston, Marie, Earll, Louise, Giles, Mark, Mcclenahan, Roshan, Stevens, David, Morrison, Val·1999·British Journal of Health Psychology

Abstract

Objectives. To investigate whether poor psychological status predicts shorter survival, faster progress of disease and greater disability in patients with ALS/MND (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neurone disease). Design. A prospective study of mood as a predictor of 6‐month outcome in a consecutive cohort of patients with ALS/MND. Methods. A cohort of 38 consecutive patients completed mood, self‐esteem, wellbeing and disability measures at the time of diagnosis and 6 weeks later. Survival and disability were assessed at 6 months. Results. The 10 patients who died had poorer overall mood at the 6‐week interviews. Low mood early in disease also predicted greater disability at 6 months. The poor outcomes of patients with poor psychological well‐being were not due to confounding associations between mood and disease severity. Conclusions. The data confirm McDonald, Weidenfeld, Hillel, Carpenter & Walter's (1994) finding that poor psychological status predicts poor survival in ALS/MND. This study also extend their findings by (a) recruiting patients at the point of diagnosis and therefore controlling for effects due to the duration of disease, and (b) demonstrating that mood also predicts disease progression and disability. The findings are unlikely to be due to simple spurious association of the psychological status measures with recognized indices of disease or of expected survival. Explanations for the results can be considered in the context of other findings of mood predicting outcomes of life‐threatening disease and the possible value of psychological interventions may be considered.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/135910799168524

Cites

16 of 16 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnston, M., Earll, L., Giles, M., Mcclenahan, R., Stevens, D., & Morrison, V.
Affiliations
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
  • Gloucestershire Royal Hospital (GB)
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
  • Queen Margaret University (GB)
Corresponding author
Johnston, Marie
Venue
British Journal of Health Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-05
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
127-136
ISSN
  • 1359-107X (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8287
OpenAlex
W1964934303
Cited by
57
References
16
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
British Journal of Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
Funders
Motor Neurone Disease Association
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Neurogenetic and Muscular Disorders Research
Keywords
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, motor neuron disease, mood, psychological well-being, self-esteem, survival, disability, disease progression, prognostic factors, psychological intervention

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