Psychotherapy with multiple-sclerosis patients

Citation
A. Langenmayr et N. Schottes, Psychotherapy with multiple-sclerosis patients, PSYCHOL REP, 86(2), 2000, pp. 495-508
Citations number
30
Categorie Soggetti
Psycology
Journal title
PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS
ISSN journal
00332941 → ACNP
Volume
86
Issue
2
Year of publication
2000
Pages
495 - 508
Database
ISI
SICI code
0033-2941(200004)86:2<495:PWMP>2.0.ZU;2-L
Abstract
We wanted to find out if psychotherapy may influence the course of the phys ical aspects of multiple sclerosis and the consequences of psychotherapy fo r coping processes. 46 patients diagnosed with multiple sclerosis who had c hosen to undergo a 1-yr. group psychotherapy treatment were compared with a control group of 24 multiple-sclerosis patients without such treatment. Th ey were given the Giessen test (personality test), the Achievement Capaciti es Questionnaire by Kesselring, an intensive interview as well as the conte nt analysis scales of Verbal behavior by Gottschalk and Gleser. The various tests were carried out at each of four times of measurement with a 2-yr. f ollow-up. There were significant changes in the area of relation ships and aggressive loosening (interview) between the Therapy and Control groups. Se veral changes were also found with regard to physical symptoms (Achievement Capacities Questionnaire) in the Therapy group compared to the Control gro up, e.g., increases in physical mobility and decreases in care of the body. The decreases appear to be a known effect of therapy with psychosomatic di sorders. We interpret it psychoanalytically as resistance against releasing anxiety of countercathecred motives which multiple sclerosis helps to keep unconscious. In a follow-up, the Therapy group showed greater optimism and physical improvements, e.g., decrease in feeling cold and lack of energy. Some positive changes appeared in both groups, such as, for example, an imp rovement of cognitive impairment (Gottschalk & Gleser). It appears that the attention from the research itself may have affected both groups because s ome members of both groups were in contact and hence the Control group was also informed about the research project and its underlying hypothesis.