Abstract
Objectives: To assess quality of life or factors related to the foot and general health and to determine the impact taking into account foot health status in people with multiple sclerosis (MS).
Methods: 50 subjects with MS and 50 healthy subjects were studied using the Foot Health Status Questionnaire, that is a validated and is reliable tool was used to assess foot health and quality of life. This instrument comprise four domains for evaluate the foot health (foot function, foot pain, footwear and general foot health) in the first section and for measure the general health comprise four domains (general health, physical activity, social capacity and vigor) for second section and was use for all participants.
Results: In both groups of the sample, 50% (n = 15) were men and 50% (n = 35) women, and the mean age in the case group was 48.04 ± 10.49 and the control group was 48.04 ± 10.45 were recruited. A statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) was shown for foot function, general foot health, general health, physical activity and vigor domains, stating that people with MS have a lower related to foot health (lower FHSQ scores) compared to healthy subjects who have higher FHSQ scores. There were no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) for the scores of the other domains of the FHSQ (foot pain, footwear and social capacity).
Conclusion: Patients with MS suffer a negative impact on the quality of life related to foot health, which appears to be associated with the chronic disease.
Introduction
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system (CNS), which causes large focal lesions in the white matter of the brain and spinal cord (1). Gait dysfunction is an almost ubiquitous symptom even in the early stages of the disease, several factors, such as ataxia, hypertonic muscles and deformities of the musculoskeletal system, will affect the normal contact of the plantigrade foot (2), causing a significant reduction in functional independence and wellness of patients suffering from this neurological disease (3).
In Spain, the estimated incidence of MS is 3.8 per 100,000 and the prevalence is 36–55 per 100,000, but recent studies in southern Spain state that the prevalence is higher than expected and, given the low mortality rate, can be expected to increase in the coming years (4, 5), with several studies coinciding in that the most frequent form is recurrent remitting (RR) MS, and that the female predominance has a 2 to 1 ratio (6). Women are about 2–3 times more likely to have MS, and most patients are between the ages of 20 and 50. Vitamin D deficiency is inversely related to the risk of MS and its deficiency affects 20%–25% of the population in Asia, America, Canada, Europe and Australia (7). There is strong evidence that smokers are at higher risk of MS than non-smokers (8).
It should be noted that MS patients experience a variety of deficiencies and symptoms including abnormal gait and balance, muscle weakness, spasticity, and fatigue (9); as well as neuritis, central paralysis, sensory imbalance, cognitive impairment and sleep disorders (7, 10). It is noteworthy that spasticity is one of the most prevalent chronic symptoms in MS and the one that most affects the QoL and functionality of patients. Epidemiological studies indicated that it can affect up to 80% of MS patients. Spasticity presents as increased muscle stiffness, often accompanied by spasms and impaired reflexes. In particular, the foot-related health has not been studied analytically, even thought several studied confirmed the habitual foot conditions are related with foot drop, which occurs frequently in MS due to involvement of the peroneal nerve and weak-ness of the dorsiflexor muscles, with the consequent risk of trips and falls, re-impacting the way of walking with alterations in gait patterns, forces them to perform compensatory movements such as raising the knee and turning the hips in a circular motion to lift the tip of the foot, which can cause muscle injuries, in addition to increasing fatigue (11, 12). Impaired ability to walk is a major concern for 85% of the people with MS (13, 14). Disease-modifying drugs (DMD) are the best defense to slow the progression of MS. As benefits, they cause a reduction in the frequency and severity of relapses and a reduction in the damaged areas within the brain and spinal cord, thus delaying the disability caused by this disease (15).
According to the World Health Organization, QoL is a dynamic concept based on the subjective sensation of the patient with variability over time (16). The impact of MS on QoL can be affected by numerous factors such as level of disability, type of MS, social support, education, age or employment (17–19). The most common scales that have been used to assess QoL in MS patients are the SF-36 (Short Form 36 Health Survey), the FAMS (Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis) and the EDSS (Expanded Disability Status Scale) (20). Previous studies have determined that ocular alterations, lack of balance, spasticity and difficulties in walking are the factors that most affect the QoL of these patients (19, 20).
We know that MS is a chronic, progressive and disabling disease, with no expectation of cure that influences the QoL of sick people and in which the health of the feet is affected (21). However, currently QoL related to the health status of the foot in patients with MS has not been addressed in scientific studies, although clinical manifestations and conditions in the lower limbs and feet are very frequent in this pathology.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess foot and general health-related QoL factors by determining the impact on foot health-related QoL in a sample of MS subjects versus a group of subjects without MS.
Methods
Design and Sample
An observational, analytical and multicenter study of cases and controls was carried out in which subjects from MS associations in Málaga, Granada, Campillos, Marbella, Jerez and the Hospital of Ronda (Spain) were recruited from January to April 2022.
Study subjects were members of the associations of MS in Andalusia (Spain) and the healthy (controls) was recruited in a podiatric medical center that provides management of foot care in the town of Malaga (Spain). In both groups, were taken the first people with or without MS that complied the criterions for participate in this research using a convenience sampling method and they were matched to 50 assembled cases as they came forward to participate in this research.
Subjects with MS were included after being informed by the MS association that a study of the foot and wellness was to be carried out. The control subjects or healthy group were drawn from healthy people from the same locality as the cases.
The inclusion criteria were: to be between 18–88 years, of either sex, able to walk and to have authorized participation in the signing of a consent form.
The exclusion criteria of the subjects were: to have another neurodegenerative disease other than MS, cognitive impairment and severe mental disorder. Cases and controls were matched for age, gender, and BMI.
Sample Size Calculation
A total sample calculation was designed to perform estimates of statistical power and effect size (22), as a result of the difference between two independent means (two groups) thought the G*Power 3.1.9.7 for Windows (Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf). A two-tailed hypothesis, an effect size of 0.5, an α error probability of 0.05, a power (1-β error probability) of 0.6 and an allocation ratio for N2/N1 of 1 were applied. Therefore, a sample size was established consisting of 82 participants (41 per group). Finally, a total number of 100 subjects with 50 in each group participated in this research.
Procedure
For the data collection, the research podiatrist received the participants, in similar conditions and time of day and asked them a series of questions that included anthropometric parameters (such as age, height, weight, sex), years of evolution of the disease and type of MS (in those with MS). Disability for walking and correct balance were assessed using the Berg scale. It is a clinical test of static and dynamic balance that consists of 14 simple tasks related to balance, which are scored from 0 to 4. The scores can inform us about their motor and functional capacity: initial standing group (33–39), walking start group (40–44), walking with/without technical aids (45–49), independent walking (50–54) and functional walking (55–56) (23). Subsequently, the subjects completed the Foot Health Status Questionnaire (FHSQ) Spanish version, which is a foot-specific health-related QoL measurement instrument designed and validated in Australia by Dr. Bennett et al. (24) which comprises three main sections. Introduction section consists of 13 questions reflecting four foot health-related domains: foot pain, foot function, footwear, and general foot health. This section has demonstrated a high degree of content, criterion, and construct validity (Cronbach α = 0.89–0.95) and high retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.74–0.92) (25), and it has been shown to be the most appropriate measure of health-related quality of life for foot health population (26). Each domain has a specific number of questions. Four regarding pain, 4 on function, 3 on footwear and 2 on general foot health. The assessment of pain and function is based on physical phenomena, the evaluation of footwear uses practical aspects related to availability and the comfort of the shoes, while the perception of the foot’s general health is based on the patients’ self-assessment of the state of their feet. Each question allows several answers and these are placed on a Likert-type ordinal scale (words or phrases corresponding to a numeric scale). The descriptors for these scales vary for each domain and the person completing the questionnaire has to choose only one response, whichever is thought to be the most appropriate. The questionnaire does not provide a global score, but rather generates an index for each domain. In order to obtain these indices, the responses are analysed by a computer program (The FHSQ, Version 1.03) which, after processing the data, gives a score ranging from 0 to 100. A 0 score represents the worst state of health for the foot and 100 is the best possible condition.
Methods section includes questions that reflect four general health-related domains: general health, physical activity, social capacity, and vigor. The domains and questions in this section are largely adapted from the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (27), which has been validated for use in the Australian and Spanish population (28, 29).
Finally, Results section collects socioeconomic status, comorbidity, service utilization and satisfaction information and their medical record.
Ethics Procedure
To carry out our research, authorization was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the University of Malaga (CEUMA) with registration number 32–2021-H, in addition the subjects gave their permission to participate in the study by signing the informed consent form. The study was developed following the ethical principles of Clinical Research in humans (30, 31).
Statistical Analysis
Demographic data (age, height, weight, BMI) and independent variables related with FHSQ domains levels are reported as median and interquartile range along with the range of minimum and maximum, to exception of sex that appear with frequency and percentages to describe the data.
Normality for samples of more than thirty subjects was evaluated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in all variables, considering normality when p > 0.05 is met. In the variables that presented normality, Student’s t-test was used to find out if there was a significant difference between groups. Measurements that did not present a normal distribution were studied with the U Mann Whitney test. The FHSQ v1.03 was used to obtain QoL scores related to foot health status, where statistical significance was established at 95% CI. The gender distribution in both groups was contrasted using the Chi-square test and percentages and frequencies were applied for categorical data. All statistical analyses were carried out with SPSS v19.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, United States).
Results
Descriptive Data
A total of 100 subjects between 24 and 66 years of age participated in this research. The analyzed sample included 50 subjects with MS and 50 subjects without MS; 30% (n = 30) were men and 70% (n = 70) women. The mean age was 48.04 ± 10.41. The years diagnosed were taken as it appeared in their health clinical history or data sheet of the MS association. People who suffer from the disease have an evolution of 10 ± 12 (1–33) years. Table 1 shows that the sociodemographic data of the subjects who participated in our study do not present significant differences between both groups (p > 0.01). After collecting data from our research, we have observed that the most used DMDs for MS were: anti-inflammatories [dimethyl fumarate (18%)], immunomodulators [interferon (26%), teriflunomide (14%), fingolimod (10%), glatiramer acetate (4%)], immunosuppressant [cladribine (8%)], monoclonal antibodies [ocrelizumab (4%), rituximab (2%)], and muscle relaxant [tizanidine (2%)]. Of the sample taken, 12% did not take any type of medication. Based on the Berg scale for the assessment of disability during walking, it was observed that 100% (n = 50) of the participants did not present alterations in walking and were within the functional walking group.
TABLE 1
| Descriptive data | MS (n = 50) | Healthy (n = 50) | p-value* | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD (95%CI) | Median (IR) | Mean ± SD (95%CI) | Median (IR) | ||
| Age (Years) | 48.04 ± 10.49 (24–66) | 49.00 (16.00) | 48.04 ± 10.45 (24–66) | 49.50 (15.00) | 0.992* |
| Weight (kgr) | 70.30 ± 13.48 (46–105) | 68.50 (19.50) | 72.74 ± 12.35 (47–100) | 72.50 (15.80) | 0.317* |
| Height (m) | 1.67 ± 0.09 (1.50–1.83) | 1.68 (0.15) | 1.68 ± 0.83 (1.56–1.88) | 1.65 (0.12) | 0.536† |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 25.09 ± 3.99 (18.00–37.50) | 23.85 (6.25) | 25.73 ± 4.49 (18.40–37.20) | 24.65 (5.88) | 0.341† |
| Sex, m/f (%) | 15/35 (30/70) | 15/35 (30/70) | 1‡ | ||
Descriptive data of the sample (Spain, 2022).
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; M, male; F, Female. In all the analyses, p < 0.05 (with a 5% confidence interval) was considered statistically significant. *Student’s t-test for independent samples were performed. †U Mann Whitney test were utilized. ‡Frequencies (percentages) and chi-square (x2) test were utilized.
Outcome Measurements
The domains that did not present a normal distribution were foot pain, foot function, footwear, general foot health, physical activity and social capacity (p < 0.05); showing a normal distribution in general health and vigor (p > 0.05).
In what regards the comparison of the scores obtained with the FHSQ, results appear in Table 2. These scores were higher for the non-MS group, with normalized reference values in the section of the questionnaire assessing foot pain, footwear problems, and social capacity. In the case of foot function, general foot health, physical activities, general health and vigor there is a statistically significant difference between both groups (p < 0.05).
TABLE 2
| MS (N = 50) | Healthy (N = 50) | p-Value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome measurements FHSQ | Mean ± SD (95% CI) | Median (IR) | Mean ± SD (95% CI) | Median (IR) | |
| Foot pain | 73.50 ± 26.33 (6.25–100.00) | 81.25 (36.72) | 81.65 ± 17.70 (29.38–100.00) | 85.94 (21.25) | 0.291† |
| Foot function | 75.13 ± 27.82 (12.50–100.00) | 81.25 (43.75) | 90.63 ± 13.38 (43.75–100.00) | 93.75 (14.06) | 0.03† |
| Footwear | 44.83 ± 38.17 (0–100.00) | 41.67 (77.08) | 56.50 ± 33.89 (0–100.00) | 58.33 (60.42) | 0.119† |
| General foot health | 49.75 ± 27.69 (0–100.00) | 57.5 (38.13) | 64.35 ± 23.92 (12.50–100.00) | 60 (26.25) | 0.013† |
| General health | 57.00 ± 25.50 (0–100.00) | 60.00 (40.00) | 75.60 ± 19.60 (30.00–100.00) | 80.00 (30.00) | 0.001* |
| Physical activity | 68.44 ± 29.75 (0–100.00) | 80.55 (50.00) | 85.89 ± 23.84 (5.56–100.00) | 94.44 (16.67) | 0.004† |
| Social capacity | 79.25 ± 29.73 (0–100.00) | 100.00 (40.62) | 89.50 ± 15.84 (50.00–100.00) | 100.00 (25.00) | 0.366† |
| Vigor | 48.50 ± 24.21 (0–100.00) | 50.00 (37.50) | 61.13 ± 16.62 (18.75–93.75) | 62.50 (25.00) | 0.001* |
FHSQ domains levels between MS and healthy subjects (Spain, 2022).
Abbreviations: FHSQ, foot health status questionnaire. *, Independent Student’s t -tests were employed. †, the U Mann Whitney test was employed. p-value < 0.05 with a 95% confidence interval was considered statistically significant.
Therefore, results indicated that people with MS have a lower QoL related to foot health (lower FHSQ scores) compared to healthy subjects who have higher FHSQ scores. There were no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) for the scores of the other domains of the FHSQ (foot pain, footwear and social capacity).
Discussion
The objective of this study was to ascertain the impact that MS has on QoL related to foot health, comparing it in a group of subjects with MS with another control group of healthy subjects. This is the first analytical study to look at how MS affects foot related QoL.
According to our study, no significant difference (p > 0.05) was shown between domains levels between MS and healthy subject regarding foot pain, footwear and social capacity. In the domains area where there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) was in foot function, general foot health, physical activities, general health and vigor, where new in-depth investigations would have to be carried out to detect changes in these domains and relate it to the years diagnosed in patients with MS.
It is known that in subjects with MS, the functionality of the lower limbs is very important due to the influence of this pathology on joint mobility and muscle deficits, thus having a great impact on their psychomotor health. In recent reviews, according to the results of Stephen et al. (32), the treatment and long-term prospects of these patients have improved by introducing pharmacological therapies at an earlier stage in the disease; As Sophie et al. (33) also indicate, early diagnosis and treatment is crucial in youths, establishing a new induction therapy with better prognoses than the traditional one. Therefore, we must recognize the importance of the study of the foot in this pathology as a consequence of the conditions it causes.
In addition, different studies were focused on the assessment of QoL in patients with MS show that there is a deterioration of QoL with poor health promotion in terms of the clinical and motor symptoms where is made to the importance of physical rehabilitation programs for improvement of symptoms, as well as the inclusion of different health professionals for a better management of this pathology, resulting in an improvement in QoL (34, 35).
Furthermore, there are few studies relating QoL together with the state of foot health and general wellbeing within this pathology. For this reason, with our study we identified that subjects with MS had an affected QoL with respect to foot wellbeing, compared to subjects without MS.
Nevertheless, all our results in the group with MS are of a lower value compared to those of the group of healthy subjects, this difference being statistically significant in most of the domains analyzed, such as foot function, general foot health, general health, physical activity and vigor. A recent investigation where the wellness in relation to foot health was studied with the FHSQ questionnaire in patients suffering from chronic foot pain, coincides with ours with results that indicate that foot function, general health and physical activity are affected domains that alter and affect the patients’ QoL (36). In another similar study with Parkinson’s patients (37), it was concluded that this disease negatively affected wellness in relation to foot health, with the same domains being affected as those in our study with MS patients, both being neurological diseases.
Consistent with similar studies in subjects with poor foot wellbeing (38), foot pain (39), and joint disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis (40–42), our results also refer to the importance of physical activity as a fundamental aspect for improving QoL in subjects with MS, and in those who present deterioration.
Taking into account all of the above in relation to the affectation of QoL and foot health status, the results indicate the importance of the need to approach the treatment of this disease with a multidisciplinary team. Therefore, a correct evaluation of the state of the foot by a multidisciplinary team could be essential to reduce the increase in disabilities, neuromuscular disorders or symptoms throughout the evolution of MS.
Finally, this study has some limitations such as the walking status among the cases which may be the main sampling bias. Also, the consecutive sampling bias should be studied and a simple randomization sampling method could be more suitable for future investigations for improve that the results generalizability. Another limitation is the location of the participants where, from the entire Autonomous Community of Andalusia, only people from six geographical points wanted to participate in the study. All of this should be considered in future studies to give greater strength to the study and improve the results obtained with the different questionnaires applied in this pathology with respect to QoL and the foot.
Conclusion
Patients with MS suffer a negative impact on the quality of life related to foot health, which appears to be associated with the chronic disease.
Statements
Ethics Statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by University of Malaga (CEUMA) with registration number 32-2021-H. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, FR-S, MM, DL-L, and AJ-C; methodology, FR-S, ML-I, DL-L, RB-d-B-V, JG-S, CR-M, and AJ-C; formal analysis, FR-S, ML-I, DL-L, and RB-d-B-V; investigation, FR-S, MM, DL-L, and AJ-C; writing—original draft preparation, FR-S, DL-L, and AJ-C; writing—review and editing, FR-S, MM, ML-I, DL-L, RB-d-B-V, JG-S, CR-M, and AJ-C; supervision, FR-S, MM, ML-I, DL-L, RB-d-B-V, JG-S, CR-M, and AJ-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank to Dr. Angela Ollero and, patients with MS from the Department of Neurology at the Hospital of Ronda (Málaga) and associations of MS in Andalusia (Spain).
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest.
References
1
Lassmann H . Multiple Sclerosis Pathology. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med (2018) 8:a028936. 10.1101/cshperspect.a028936
2
Keklicek H Cetin B Salci Y Balkan AF Altinkaynak U Armutlu K . Investigating the Dynamic Plantar Pressure Distribution and Loading Pattern in Subjects with Multiple Sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord (2018) 20:186–91. 10.1016/j.msard.2018.01.023
3
Qureshi A . Gait Features and Their Relationships to Physiological Attributes of Multiple Sclerosis (2017). 1–139.
4
Izquierdo G Venegas A Sanabria C Navarro G . Long-Term Epidemiology of Multiple Sclerosis in the Northern Seville District. Acta Neurol Scand (2015) 132:111–7. 10.1111/ane.12363
5
Wallin MT Culpepper WJ Nichols E Bhutta ZA Gebrehiwot TT Hay SI et al Global, Regional, and National Burden of Multiple Sclerosis 1990–2016: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol (2019) 18:269–85. 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30443-5
6
Vizcarra Escobar D Kawano Castillo J Castañeda Barba C Chereque Gutierrez A Tipismana Barbarán M Bernabé Ortiz A et al Prevalencia de Esclerosis Múltiple En Lima – Perú. Rev Med Hered. (2012) 20:146. 10.20453/rmh.v20i3.1014
7
Azami M YektaKooshali MH Shohani M Khorshidi A Mahmudi L . Epidemiology of Multiple Sclerosis in Iran: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One (2019) 14:e0214738. 10.1371/journal.pone.0214738
8
Ascherio A Munger KL . Epidemiology of Multiple Sclerosis: From Risk Factors to Prevention--An Update. Semin Neurol (2016) 36:103–14. 10.1055/s-0036-1579693
9
Farrell JW Motl RW Learmonth YC Pilutti LA . Persons with Multiple Sclerosis Exhibit Strength Asymmetries in Both Upper and Lower Extremities. Physiother (United Kingdom) (2021) 111:83–91. 10.1016/j.physio.2020.07.006
10
Izquierdo G Ruiz-Peña JL . Clinical Evaluation of Multiple Sclerosis: Quantification by Use of Scales. Rev Neurol (2003) 36:145–52.
11
Fernández O . Advances in the Management of Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity: Recent Clinical Trials. Eur Neurol (2014) 72:9–11. 10.1159/000367616
12
Viseux FJF . The Sensory Role of the Sole of the Foot: Review and Update on Clinical Perspectives. Neurophysiol Clin (2020) 50:55–68. 10.1016/J.NEUCLI.2019.12.003
13
Renfrew L Paul L McFadyen A Rafferty D Moseley O Lord AC et al The Clinical- and Cost-Effectiveness of Functional Electrical Stimulation and Ankle-Foot Orthoses for Foot Drop in Multiple Sclerosis: A Multicentre Randomized Trial. Clin Rehabil (2019) 33:1150–62. 10.1177/0269215519842254
14
Palomo-López P Calvo-Lobo C Becerro-De-Bengoa-Vallejo R Losa-Iglesias ME Rodriguez-Sanz D Sánchez-Gómez R et al Quality of Life Related to Foot Health Status in Women with Fibromyalgia: A Case-Control Study. Arch Med Sci (2019) 15:694–9. 10.5114/aoms.2018.77057
15
Ríos Martínez MJ Arteaga A Henao J Vagner B Castro-Álvarez JF . Disease-Modifying Drugs in Multiple Sclerosis: Current Therapeutic Schemes. Rev chil neuropsicol (2022) 15(1):32–37. 10.5839/rcnp.2020.15.01.06
16
Mick P Kuyken W Orley JH Herman H Schofield HL Murphy BM et al The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Development and General Psychometric Properties. Soc Sci Med (1998) 46(12):1569–85. 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00009-4
17
Wilski M Gabryelski J Brola W Tomasz T . Health-Related Quality of Life in Multiple Sclerosis: Links to Acceptance, Coping Strategies and Disease Severity. Disabil Health J (2019) 12:608–14. 10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.06.003
18
Ochoa-Morales A Hernández-Mojica T Paz-Rodríguez F Jara-Prado A Trujillo-De Los Santos Z Sánchez-Guzmán MA et al Quality of Life in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis and its Association with Depressive Symptoms and Physical Disability. Mult Scler Relat Disord (2019) 36:101386. 10.1016/j.msard.2019.101386
19
Gil-González I Martín-Rodríguez A Conrad R Pérez-San-Gregorio MÁ . Quality of Life in Adults with Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review. BMJ Open (2020) 10:e041249. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041249
20
Delgado-Mendilívar JM Cadenas-Díaz JC Fernández-Torrico JM Navarro-Mascarell G Izquierdo G . A Study of the Quality of Life in Cases of Multiple Sclerosis. Rev Neurol (2005) 41:257–62. 10.33588/rn.4105.2004504
21
Jiménez-Cebrián AM Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo R Losa-Iglesias ME Calvo-Lobo C Mazoteras-Pardo V Morán-Cortés JF et al Impact of Chronic Kidney Diseases in Feet Health & Quality of Life: A Case-Series Study. J Tissue Viability (2021) 30:271–5. 10.1016/j.jtv.2021.02.005
22
Faul F Erdfelder E Lang AG Buchner A . G*Power 3: a Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences. Behav Res Methods (2007) 39:175–91. 10.3758/BF03193146
23
Pan Y Huang Y Zhang H Tang Y Wang C . The Effects of Baduanjin and Yoga Exercise Programs on Physical and Mental Health in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Complement Ther Med (2022) 70:102862. 10.1016/j.ctim.2022.102862
24
Bennett PJ Patterson C Wearing S Baglioni T . Development and Validation of a Questionnaire Designed to Measure Foot-Health Status. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc (1998) 88:419–28. 10.7547/87507315-88-9-419
25
Bennett PJ Patterson C Dunne MP . Health-Related Quality of Life Following Podiatric Surgery. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc (2001) 91:164–73. 10.7547/87507315-91-4-164
26
Landorf KB Keenan A-M . An Evaluation of Two Foot-specific, Health-Related Quality-Of-Life Measuring Instruments. Foot Ankle Int (2002) 23:538–46. 10.1177/107110070202300611
27
Ware JE Sherbourne CD . The MOS 36-Item Short-form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection. Med Care (1992) 30:473–83.
28
Palomo-López P López-López D Becerro-De-Bengoa-Vallejo R Losa-Iglesias ME Rodríguez-Sanz D Fernández-Carnero J et al Concurrent Validity of the Foot Health Status Questionnaire and Study Short Form 36 for Measuring the Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Foot Problems. Med (2019) 55:750. 10.3390/medicina55110750
29
Bennett P Australasian CP . Undefined the Foot Health Status Questionnaire (FHSQ): A New Instrument for Measuring Outcomes of Footcare. Aust Pod Counc (1998) 32:87–91.
30
Holt GR . Declaration of Helsinki-The World’s Document of Conscience and Responsibility. South Med J (2014) 107:407. 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000131
31
World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA (2013) 310(20):2191–4. 10.1001/jama.2013.281053
32
Hauser SL Cree BAC . Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis: A Review. Am J Med (2020) 133:1380–90.e2. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.05.049
33
Duignan S Brownlee W Wassmer E Hemingway C Lim M Ciccarelli O et al Paediatric Multiple Sclerosis: A New Era in Diagnosis and Treatment. Dev Med Child Neurol (2019) 61:1039–49. 10.1111/dmcn.14212
34
Tollár J Nagy F Tóth BE Török K Szita K Csutorás B et al Exercise Effects on Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life and Clinical-Motor Symptoms. Med Sci Sports Exerc (2020) 52:1007–14. 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002228
35
Centonze D Leocani L Feys P . Advances in Physical Rehabilitation of Multiple Sclerosis. Curr Opin Neurol (2020) 33:255–61. 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000816
36
López-López L Navarro-Flores E Losa-Iglesias ME Casado-Hernández I Becerro-De-bengoa-vallejo R Romero-Morales C et al Impact of Chronic Foot Pain Related Quality of Life: A Retrospective Case-Control Study. Pain Physician (2022) 25:E851–E856.
37
Becerro-de-bengoa-vallejo R Navarro-flores E Jim AM Losa-iglesias ME Romero-morales C Daniel L et al Effect of Foot Health and Quality of Life in Patients with Parkinson Disease: A Prospective Case-Control Investigation. A Prospective Case-Control Invest (2022) 31:69–72. 10.1016/j.jtv.2021.07.001
38
Craig JJ Bruetsch AP Lynch SG Huisinga JM . Trunk and Foot Acceleration Variability during Walking Relates to Fall History and Clinical Disability in Persons with Multiple Sclerosis. Clin Biomech (2020) 80:105100. 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105100
39
Оstаpyak ZM Mytckan BM Bejga P Gerich RP Popel’ SL . Effectiveness of Physical Therapy in Myofascial Syndrome in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis. Wiad Lek (2020) 73:1950–6. 10.36740/wlek202009210
40
Reinoso-Cobo A Anttila P Ortega-Avila AB Cervera-Garvi P Lopezosa-Reca E Marchena-Rodriguez A et al Morpho-Structural Characteristics of Feet in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cross Sectional Study. Int J Med Sci (2021) 18:2269–75. 10.7150/ijms.56935
41
Ramos-Petersen L Nester CJ Gijon-Nogueron G Ortega-Avila AB . Foot Orthoses for People with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Involving Quantitative and Qualitative Outcomes: Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial. BMJ Open (2020) 10:e036433. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036433
42
Reinoso-Cobo A Gijon-Nogueron G Caliz-Caliz R Ferrer-Gonzalez MA Vallejo-Velazquez MT Miguel Morales-Asencio J et al Foot Health and Quality of Life in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMJ Open (2020) 10:e036903. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036903
Summary
Keywords
quality of life, foot care, multiple sclerosis, foot health, foot health status questionnaire
Citation
Ruiz-Sánchez FJ, Martins MDR, Losa-Iglesias ME, Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo R, Gómez-Salgado J, Romero-Morales C, Jiménez-Cebrián AM and López-López D (2023) Impact of Multiple Sclerosis on Foot Health and Quality of Life: A Prospective Case-Control Investigation. Int J Public Health 68:1605593. doi: 10.3389/ijph.2023.1605593
Received
15 November 2022
Accepted
07 February 2023
Published
15 February 2023
Volume
68 - 2023
Edited by
Gabriel Gulis, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
Reviewed by
Sharon Warren, University of Alberta, Canada
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Ruiz-Sánchez, Martins, Losa-Iglesias, Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo, Gómez-Salgado, Romero-Morales, Jiménez-Cebrián and López-López.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Juan Gómez-Salgado, salgado@uhu.es
This Original Article is part of the IJPH Special Issue “Public Health and Primary Care, is 1+1=1?”
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.