The Experience of Persons With Multiple Sclerosis Using MS INFoRm: An Interactive Fatigue Management Resource
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to understand participants' experiences with a self-guided fatigue management resource, Multiple Sclerosis: An Interactive Fatigue Management Resource ( MS INFoRm), and the extent to which they found its contents relevant and useful to their daily lives. We recruited 35 persons with MS experiencing mild to moderate fatigue, provided them with MS INFoRm, and then conducted semistructured interviews 3 weeks and 3 months after they received the resource. Interpretive description guided the analysis process. Findings indicate that participants' experience of using MS INFoRm could be understood as a process of change, influenced by their initial reactions to the resource. They reported experiencing a shift in knowledge, expectations, and behaviors with respect to fatigue self-management. These shifts led to multiple positive outcomes, including increased levels of self-confidence and improved quality of life. These findings suggest that MS INFoRm may have a place in the continuum of fatigue management interventions for people with MS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".