Skip to main content Skip to search
Details
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7
BackgroundCognitive problems frequently occur in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and profoundly affect their quality of life. So far, the best cognitive treatment options for MS patients are a matter of debate. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the effectiveness of two promising non-pharmacological treatments: cognitive rehabilitation therapy (CRT) and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT). Furthermore, this study aims to gain additional knowledge about the aetiology of cognitive problems among MS patients, since this may help to develop and guide effective cognitive treatments. Methods/design In a dual-centre, single-blind randomised controlled trial (RCT), 120 MS patients will be randomised into one of three parallel groups: CRT, MBCT or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU). Both CRT and MBCT consist of a structured 9-week program. ETAU consists of one appointment with an MS specialist nurse. Measurements will be performed at baseline, post-intervention and 6 months after the interventions. The primary outcome measure is the level of subjective cognitive complaints. Secondary outcome measures are objective cognitive function, functional brain network measures (using magnetoencephalography), psychological symptoms, well-being, quality of life and daily life functioning. Discussion To our knowledge, this will be the first RCT that investigates the effect of MBCT on cognitive function among MS patients. In addition, studying the effect of CRT on cognitive function may provide direction to the contradictory evidence that is currently available. This study will also provide information on changes in functional brain networks in relation to cognitive function. To conclude, this study may help to understand and treat cognitive problems among MS patients.

Participants in the dialogue between science and Buddhism have long modeled their discussion primarily on the idea of convergence, the premise that the most significant comparisons are those that reveal common ground. This is by no means the only model for comparative discussion, and I would argue that in the case of Buddhism and science it is deeply flawed. Instead, another model—one based on mutual challenge, in which the two sides are able to shed light on each other precisely because of their differences—offers what I see as a more potentially fruitful alternative.
Zotero Collections:

Participants in the dialogue between science and Buddhism have long modeled their discussion primarily on the idea of convergence, the premise that the most significant comparisons are those that reveal common ground. This is by no means the only model for comparative discussion, and I would argue that in the case of Buddhism and science it is deeply flawed. Instead, another model—one based on mutual challenge, in which the two sides are able to shed light on each other precisely because of their differences—offers what I see as a more potentially fruitful alternative.
Zotero Tags:

Objectives: The objective of this pilot study was to compare the effects of two mind-body interventions: mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and cognitive-behavioral stress reduction (CBSR). Subjects: Fifty ( 50) subjects were recruited from the community and took part in MBSR (n = 36) and CBSR (n = 14) courses. Participants self-selected into MBSR or CBSR courses taught at different times. There were no initial differences between the MBSR and CBSR subjects on demographics, including age, gender, education, and income. Intervention: MBSR was an 8-week course using meditation, gentle yoga, and body scanning exercises to increase mindfulness. CBSR was an 8-week course using cognitive and behavioral techniques to change thinking and reduce distress. Design: Perceived stress, depression, psychological well-being, neuroticism, binge eating, energy, pain, and mindfulness were assessed before and after each course. Pre-post scores for each intervention were compared by using paired t tests. Pre-post scores across interventions were compared by using a general linear model with repeated measures. Settings/Locations: Weekly meetings for both courses were held in a large room on a university medical center campus. Results: MBSR subjects improved on all eight outcomes, with all of the differences being significant. CBSR subjects improved on six of eight outcomes, with significant improvements on well-being, perceived stress, and depression. Multivariate analyses showed that the MBSR subjects had better outcomes across all variables, when compared with the CBSR subjects. Univariate analyses showed that MBSR subjects had better outcomes with regard to mindfulness, energy, pain, and a trend for binge eating. Conclusions: While MBSR and CBSR may both be effective in reducing perceived stress and depression, MBSR may be more effective in increasing mindfulness and energy and reducing pain. Future studies should continue to examine the differential effects of cognitive behavioral and mindfulness-based interventions and attempt to explain the reasons for the differences.