RESUMEN
Stigma is an undesired differentness associated with a particular characteristic or condition that distinguishes a person as being outside the norm and cueing stereotypes. Stigma is common in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and is associated with several disease variables including disease duration, age, age of onset, and disease course. Stigma is also associated with psychological and psychosocial variables such as depression, anxiety, and quality of life. This article reviews our current understanding of stigma in people with MS with a focus on the various stigma types including anticipated, experienced, and internalized stigma, and the lack of consistent definitions across studies. It also describes the 7 instruments that are most commonly used to measure stigma in people with MS, and the limitations of each measure. We conclude that a better understanding of stigma that includes standard definitions of stigma types could lead to more direct intervention strategies aimed at reducing particular stigma concepts and resulting in improved health-related quality of life in people with MS.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROs) are considered promising tools for use in clinical settings to measure the impact of disease on physical, mental and social well-being from the patient's perspective. The Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Scale v1.1-Global Health (PROMIS-10) is a measure that is well-suited to clinical practice, but the relationships between this measure and longer PRO measures used in multiple sclerosis (MS) research are unknown. METHODS: Subjects enrolled in SysteMS: A Systems Biology Study of Clinical, Radiological, and Molecular Markers in Subjects with MS at the Brigham and Women's Hospital were eligible to contribute to the study. 349 subjects completed three PRO measures at study entry: PROMIS-10, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36), and Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders (Neuro-QoL™). All questions and global scores from PROMIS-10 were correlated with all domain and summary component scores for SF-36 and all domain scores for Neuro-QoL using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Further, the global scores from PROMIS-10 were correlated with the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) and compared between disease categories (relapsing vs progressive MS). RESULTS: Strong correlations were observed between PROMIS-10 questions and SF-36 domains aimed at measuring the same construct. Further, the PROMIS-10 Global Physical Health score was correlated with the Physical Component Score from the SF-36 (r = 0.798), and the PROMIS Global Mental Health score was correlated with the Mental Component Score from the SF-36 (r = 0.726). Strong correlations between PROMIS-10 questions and two Neuro-QoL domains (fatigue and lower extremity function) were observed, but other Neuro-QoL domains were not strongly correlated with PROMIS-10 questions. PROMIS-10 Global Physical Health had stronger relationship to EDSS and disease category compared to the Global Mental Health. CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS-10 questions and global scores are highly correlated with the corresponding domains of SF-36 in PwMS. Neuro-QoL provides different information regarding HRQOL since different domains are being measured.
