Evaluating Relapse Knowledge in People with Multiple Sclerosis: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Development and Validation of the Relapse Knowledge Questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) knowledge is a prerequisite for active patient engagement in medical decision-making. Treatment of relapses in MS is a clinical field with many uncertainties and each acute relapse requires decisions regarding possible options for action, indicating the need for patient involvement. However, there is no validated instrument assessing relapse knowledge in people with MS. Our study aims to develop a valid MS relapse questionnaire for use as an outcome instrument for educational interventions.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel developed the relapse knowledge questionnaire (RKQ) based on a previously developed questionnaire. We tested the RKQ on MS patients for comprehensibility, usability and acceptance in qualitative think-aloud interviews and conducted a cross-sectional quantitative online survey to validate the questionnaire. People with suspected or confirmed relapsing-remitting MS and a recent relapse experience were eligible for inclusion. We checked normal distribution of the RKQ score and determined the item difficulty. Construct validity was analysed using correlational analysis.

RESULTS

The final RKQ consists of 10 items. After minor changes of the RKQ during pre-testing (n = 2), pilot testing (n = 10) confirmed the usability and acceptance of the instrument. The subsequent validation study (n = 203) resulted in a mean item difficulty of 0.44, ranging from 0.18 to 0.83. Seven items were particularly difficult and answered incorrectly by more than 50 % of participants. Construct validity of the RKQ was satisfactory. The RKQ score correlated only weakly with participants' degree of education (|rp|>0.1), years since diagnosis (|rp|>0.1), and the intention to receive corticosteroids (|rp|>0.1).

CONCLUSION

This study indicates the validity of the RKQ and proposes that the RKQ is a suitable instrument to assess relapse knowledge in people with MS participating in educational interventions.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Medication self-management toolkits for adults with multiple sclerosis: A scoping review

Background

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune disease that is often treated with multiple medications. Managing multiple medications, also known as polypharmacy, can be challenging for persons with MS. Toolkits are instructional resources designed to promote behaviour change. Toolkits may support medication self-management for adults with MS, as they have been useful in other populations with chronic conditions.

Objective

The main purpose of this review was to identify and summarize medication self-management toolkits for MS, as related to the design, delivery, components, and measures used to evaluate implementation and/or outcomes.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted following guidelines by JBI. Articles were included if they focused on adults (18 years or older) with MS.

Results

Six articles reporting on four unique toolkits were included. Most toolkits were technology-based, including mobile or online applications, with only one toolkit being paper-based. The toolkits varied in type, frequency, and duration of medication management support. Varying outcomes were also identified, but there were improvements reported in symptom management, medication adherence, decision-making, and quality of life. The six studies were quantitative in design, with no studies exploring the user experience from a qualitative or mixed-methods design.

Conclusions

There is limited research on medication self-management toolkits among adults with MS. Future development, implementation, and evaluation mixed-methods research are needed to explore user experiences and overall design of toolkits.

An interactive web-based programme on relapse management for people with multiple sclerosis (POWER@MS2) - development, feasibility, and pilot testing of a complex intervention

Introduction

Despite the lack of high-quality evidence regarding its long-term effectiveness, intravenous corticosteroid therapy is recommended as the standard treatment of acute multiple sclerosis relapses in Germany. High financial expenses and the equivalent effectiveness of oral corticosteroid therapy contrast with this trend. There is an urgent need to provide patients with evidence-based and comprehensible information on relapse management and to actively involve patients in relapse treatment decisions. Web-based decision support on relapse management could be an effective measure to empower people with multiple sclerosis making informed treatment decisions.

Objectives

To develop a web-based programme on relapse management for people with multiple sclerosis and evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.

Methods

The study followed the first two phases of the UK Medical Research Council Framework for complex interventions. The first phase involved the development of an interactive web-based programme on relapse management. The second phase focused on the feasibility and pilot testing of the programme with people with multiple sclerosis and experts with a professional background in multiple sclerosis. Data was obtained using questionnaires with closed- and open-ended questions as well as qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews. Quantitative data was analyzed descriptively, whereas qualitative data was clustered by topic.

Results

Feasibility of the intervention programme was tested with 10 people with multiple sclerosis and 10 experts. Feasibility testing indicated good practicability and acceptance of the content. After revision, the programme was piloted with seven people with multiple sclerosis and three experts. The results showed good acceptance in both groups. Based on the feedback, a final revision was performed.

Conclusion

Feasibility and pilot testing indicated good user-friendliness, acceptance, and practicability of the programme. The programme is currently evaluated in a randomized controlled trial (Registration Number on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04233970). It is expected that the programme will have a positive impact on patients' relapse management and strengthen their autonomy and participation.

Moving towards patient-centered care and shared decision-making in Germany

The main focus of this paper is to describe the development and current state of policy, research and implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) in Germany. What is the current state in health policy? Since 2013, the Law on Patients' Rights has standardized all rights and responsibilities regarding medical care for patients in Germany. This comprises the right to informed decisions, comprehensive and comprehensible information, and decisions based on a clinician-patient partnership. In addition, reports and action plans such as the German Ethics Council's report on patient well-being, the National Health Literacy Action Plan, or the National Cancer Plan emphasize and foster PCC and SDM on a policy level. There are a number of public organizations in Germany that support PCC and SDM. How are patients and the public involved in health policy and research? Publishers and funding agencies increasingly demand patient and public involvement. Numerous initiatives and organizations are involved in publicizing ways to engage patients and the public. Also, an increasing number of public and research institutions have established patient advisory boards. How is PCC and SDM taught? Great progress has been made in introducing SDM into the curricula of medical schools and other health care providers' (HCPs) schools (e.g., nursing, physical therapy). What is the German research agenda? The German government and other public institutions have constantly funded research programs in which PCC and SDM are important topics. This yielded several large-scale funding initiatives and helped to develop SDM training programs for HCPs in different fields of health care and information materials. Recently, two implementation studies on SDM have been conducted. What is the current uptake of PCC and SDM in routine care, and what implementation efforts are underway? Compared to the last country report from 2017, PCC and SDM efforts in policy, research and education have been intensified. However, many steps are still needed to reliably implement SDM in routine care in Germany. Specifically, the further development and uptake of decision tools and countrywide SDM trainings for HCPs require further efforts. Nevertheless, an increasing number of decision support tools - primarily with support from health insurance funds and other public agencies - are to be implemented in routine care. Also, recent implementation efforts are promising. For example, reimbursement by health insurance companies of hospital-wide SDM implementation is being piloted. A necessary next step is to nationally coordinate the gathering and provision of the many PCC and SDM resources available.

Decision-making about corticosteroids in relapses of multiple sclerosis - development of a questionnaire based on the theory of planned behaviour

BACKGROUND

Relapses of multiple sclerosis are burdensome events and entail potentially lasting loss of function. People with multiple sclerosis have to consider corticosteroids, providing limited benefits and the risk of adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a questionnaire investigating the internal process of people with multiple sclerosis making decisions about corticosteroids.

METHODS

The questionnaire is structured by three domains, attitude, subjective social norm, and perceived behavioural control, which according to the theory of planned behaviour determine action planning. The development is inspired by a previous questionnaire studying decisions on immunotherapy. The questionnaire was tested in qualitative think-aloud interviews (n=10) for feasibility and comprehensibility and in an online survey (n=203) to assess construct and criterion validity.

RESULTS

The 18-item questionnaire was considered feasible and comprehensible. It predicted the intention to receive corticosteroids in up to 82.3% of cases. "Subjective social norm" impacted most on intention. The questionnaire also proved sensitive for autonomy preferences of people with multiple sclerosis.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the questionnaire appropriately explains the internal process people with multiple sclerosis run through when considering corticosteroids. It can be used to inform developments of tailored support for people with multiple sclerosis in making informed decisions about relapse management.

Development and psychometric properties of the Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge Assessment Scale: Rasch analysis of a novel tool for evaluating MS knowledge

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS)-related knowledge is an important evaluation metric for health education interventions. However, few MS knowledge assessment tools are currently available for use.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to develop a reliable and valid Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge Assessment Scale (MSKAS) for use in the MS community and the general public.

METHODS

The MSKAS was developed using a Delphi study methodology and was administered to participants in the first open enrolment of the Understanding Multiple Sclerosis (UMS) online course. Rasch analysis was used to examine its psychometric properties and develop the final scale.

RESULTS

Experts from across the MS community participated in the development of the MSKAS, resulting in an initial scale of 42 items. Five hundred and forty-three UMS participants completed the MSKAS; 89% were female and 30% were people with MS. The final unidimensional 22-item scale has a person separation index of 2.16, a person reliability index of 0.82, an item separation index of 11.19, and a Cronbach's alpha (kr-20) test reliability of 0.87.

CONCLUSION

The MSKAS is a unidimensional scale with good construct validity and internal consistency. The MSKAS has the potential to be useful for the assessment of MS knowledge in research and clinical practice.

Development and evaluation of an interactive web-based decision-making programme on relapse management for people with multiple sclerosis (POWER@MS2)-study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Introduction

Multiple sclerosis is a chronic inflammatory, degenerative disease of the central nervous system manifesting at first with relapses in about 85% of cases. In Germany, intravenous therapy with high-dose corticosteroids is the treatment standard of acute relapses. The treatment leads to a faster reduction of symptoms in about 25 of 100 treated patients but has no proven long-term benefits over placebo treatment. Intravenous treatment is not superior to oral treatment. Therefore, informed decisions on relapse management are required. An earlier randomised controlled trial showed that evidence-based patient information and education on relapse management leads to more informed decisions and more relapses not treated or treated with oral corticosteroids. This study aims to evaluate whether a web-based relapse management programme will positively change relapse management and strengthen autonomy in people with multiple sclerosis.

Methods

The pragmatic double-blind randomised controlled trial is accompanied by a mixed-methods process evaluation and a health economic evaluation and follows the UK Medical Research Council guidance on developing and evaluating complex interventions. A total of 188 people with possible or relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with ≥ 1 relapse within the last year and/or ≥ 2 relapses within the last 2 years will be recruited and randomised using blocks. The intervention group receives a web- and dialogue-based decision aid on relapse management, a nurse-led webinar and access to a monitored chat forum. The control group receives standard information, which will be made available via the same online platform as the intervention. The primary endpoint is the proportion of relapses not treated or treated with oral corticosteroids. Key secondary endpoints are the annualised relapse rate, decision-making, empowerment, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Facilitators and barriers will be assessed by mixed-methods process evaluation measures. The study ends when 81 relapses have been documented or after 24 months of observation per individual patient. Analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle.

Discussion

We hypothesise that the intervention will enhance patient empowerment and have a positive impact on patients’ relapse management.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04233970. Registered on 18 January 2020

Improving MS patients' understanding of treatment risks and benefits in clinical consultations: A randomised crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) patients find it difficult to understand the complex risk-benefit profiles of disease-modifying drugs. An evidence-based protocol was designed to improve patient's understanding of treatment information: Benefit and Risk Information for Medication in Multiple Sclerosis (BRIMMS).

OBJECTIVE

A feasibility study to evaluate whether the BRIMMS protocol can improve MS patients' treatment understanding and reduce conflict in treatment decisions compared to consultation as usual.

DESIGN

Single-blind 4-condition 4-period randomised crossover trial. Hypothetical treatment information was presented to MS patients in a faux 20 minute consultation session using the BRIMMS protocol (aural and visual) or as a usual consultation (aural and visual). Patients were randomised to the order in which they received the four consultation styles.

PARTICIPANTS

24 patients diagnosed with relapsing-remitting MS.

MEASURES

Patients were assessed on their comprehension of treatment information, decisional conflict and feedback on consultation styles. Disease and demographic information was also collected.

RESULTS

Treatment understanding was greater for both BRIMMS visual and BRIMMS aural, compared to usual consultations in visual or aural format. Similarly, BRIMMS visual and BRIMMS aural reduced decisional conflict compared to usual consultations in visual or aural formats. All comparisons were p<0.001. Cognitive status was not related to understanding in the BRIMMS protocol, but was negatively related with usual consultation. Conversely, mood influenced understanding on the BRIMMS protocol but not for usual consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

BRIMMS protocol offers an effective, evidence-based tool for presenting treatment information in consultations with MS patients and is not influenced by cognition.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN17318966.

Quality of Stroke Patient Information Applied in Randomized Controlled Trials-Literature Review

Background: Strokes have a huge impact on patients' quality of life. Although there are potentially effective secondary preventions and treatment options for stroke patients, adherence is mostly low. Low disease and treatment-related knowledge and, consequently, a lack of informed decision-making in stroke patients may contribute to this problem. However, stroke patient information did not seem to have relevant effects on patients' knowledge in randomized controlled trials. One contributing factor may be the lack of thoroughly developed patient information materials.

Methods: We aimed to evaluate the quality of patient information materials for stroke patients by using randomized controlled trials, applying quality criteria for evidence-based patient information (EBPI). We conducted a literature search (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL). To be included in the review, research had to be randomized controlled trials that provided stroke patient information, were published in English, and had knowledge assessed as the primary endpoint. Authors of primary studies were contacted and asked for information materials applied.

Results: We screened 15,507 hits and identified 30 eligible studies. Information materials were available for only eight studies. Analyses revealed that all available materials had important shortcomings concerning EBPI quality criteria [concerning, for example, structural information (e.g., reporting conflicts of interest), content information (e.g., reporting sources of information), or comprehensive descriptions of treatment effects and side effects]. Frequently, treatment effects were reported only narratively without providing absolute numbers, values, or frequencies.

Conclusion: Quality of materials differed, but none sufficiently fulfilled EBPI quality criteria. Unsatisfactory trial results concerning patient knowledge and patient involvement in decision-making may at least partially be explained by limitations of the provided materials. Future patient information should consider EBPI quality criteria.

Feasibility of a smartphone app to enhance physical activity in progressive MS: a pilot randomized controlled pilot trial over three months

BACKGROUND

People with chronic progressive multiple sclerosis (CPMS) have limited options in medical treatment. Enhancing physical activity (PA) might promote neuroregeneration in multiple sclerosis (MS) and positively influence disability, thus providing an alternative to medical treatment. Previous studies indicate that evidence-based patient information (EBPI) is essential for inducing behavioral change, e.g. enhancing PA.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate feasibility of a smartphone app providing EBPI about the benefit of PA and a simple activity feedback to enhance PA in people with CPMS in a pilot randomized controlled trial over 3 months.

METHODS

Thirty-eight people with CPMS (mean age 51 years, median Expanded Disability Status Scale 4.0) were 1:1 randomized into either a control group (n = 20) or an intervention group (n = 18). The intervention group received access to a multimedia EBPI app including activity feedback, texts, figures and videos. In the control group, participants received a leaflet with unspecific information about exercising in general. The EPBI itself was designed based on a systematic review. At baseline and after 3 months, all participants underwent clinical performance tests, filled in questionnaires and received an activity monitor (Actigraph®) for 7 days. The primary endpoint was the rate of responders defined as participants with a 20% increase of physical acitivity (time of moderate or vigiorous PA-MVPA) or 20% increase of the number of steps, both assessed with the activity monitor. As secondary endpoints, we compared accelerometry, performance and questionnaires adjusted for baseline measurments between the groups (ANCOVA). Moreover, we used questionnaires to compare knowledge about exercise (activity requiring physical effort, carried out to improve or improve health and fitness) in MS, usability of the app in general and motivation towards a more active lifestyle after 3 months in both groups.

RESULTS

The groups showed significant differences in disease duration and PA according to the Godin-Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire at baseline. After 3 months, we detected no difference in the rate of responders, which was an overall 22%. However, MVPA significantly increased in both groups (p < 0.001) and the intervention group tended to have a higher motivation towards a more active lifestyle (Cohens D = 0.7, p = 0.09) as measured by the questionnaire. Reponses also showed, that participants appreciated the app but claimed a lack of interactivity as a short-coming.

CONCLUSION

Just providing information in a multimedia smartphone app did not enhance physical activitiy more than a simple leaflet in this small pilot trial in CPMS. However, the group of app users tended to have a higher motivation towards a more active lifestyle. Overall, the concept of a smartphone app to support an active lifestyle in MS is highly appreciated by participants.

[Core aspects of a needs-conform care of patients with multiple sclerosis : Utilization of outpatient services and shared decision making]

BACKGROUND

Due to the necessity for lifelong treatment, high costs for the healthcare system and changes in role expectations of patients towards physicians, multiple sclerosis (MS) is an important topic in healthcare research.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the current study situation in Germany in 2020 on utilization of outpatient medical resources and shared decision making in patients with MS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

For this review a literature search was carried out in PubMed and other extended sources in order to identify and present relevant publications.

RESULTS

There are only a few studies on the utilization of outpatient medical resources by patients with MS in Germany. The highest values for utilization were found for general practitioners, family physicians and neurologists whereas urologists were less frequently involved. The values for the utilization of services provided by physiotherapists greatly differed between the studies. Several studies using different approaches to shared decision making in Germany were identified and summarized. An important prerequisite for shared decision making is an adequate knowledge on the side of the patients.

CONCLUSION

Differences in the utilization of outpatient resources by MS patients in Germany can be explained by methodological differences and limitations of the individual studies. The use of shared decision making by MS patients is demanded by various parties but so far there is little evidence for a positive effect on the disease.

Walking through life with cerebral palsy: reflections on daily walking by adults with cerebral palsy

Purpose: Walking is a major target in childhood physiotherapy for children with cerebral palsy (CP). Little information exists on the importance or value of walking when these children grow up. The aim of this study was to explore personal reflections on daily walking by adults with CP.

Method: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted and analysed with systematic text condensation, a four-step thematic cross-case analysis.

Results: Eight ambulatory adults (26–60 years, four women and four men) with CP were interviewed. Almost all had experienced deteriorated walking ability in adulthood and reported that walking was restricted and affected by intrinsic features, such as pain, fatigue, reduced balance and fear of falling. Extrinsic features such as being looked at due to walking abnormality and environmental factors, such as seasonal changes affected their free walking and was common. Some had accepted using mobility aids for energy conservation.

Conclusions: Both intrinsic and extrinsic factors influence walking in adults with CP. Reflections by the adults with CP suggest these features may reduce participation in public spaces and potentially increase acceptance and use of mobility aids.

Management of Multiple Sclerosis Relapses

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article provides an overview of the clinical and pathologic features of multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses and reviews evidence-based approaches to their treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite the increasing number and potency of MS treatments, relapses remain one of the more unpredictable and disconcerting disease aspects for many patients with MS, making their accurate recognition and treatment an essential component of good clinical care. The expanding range of relapse treatments now includes oral corticosteroids, comparable in efficacy to IV methylprednisolone at a fraction of the cost. While this development improves access to prompt treatment, it also underscores the importance of recognizing mimics of MS relapses to reduce corticosteroid overuse and its attendant risks.

SUMMARY

Like MS itself, MS relapse remains primarily a clinical diagnosis. The treatment options for MS relapse include corticosteroids, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), plasma exchange, and rehabilitation, used singly or sequentially, with the goal of limiting the duration and impact of associated disability. Even when treated promptly and effectively, clinical or subclinical sequelae of MS relapses frequently remain.

Joint Healthcare Professional and Patient Development of Communication Tools to Improve the Standard of MS Care

Introduction

Effective communication between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) is important to enhance outcomes in multiple sclerosis (MS). However, in practice, patients often report a disconnect in communication. Communication tools to aid patient–HCP communication have a long history of use in many chronic conditions. For example, symptom diaries have been shown to enhance outcomes in cancer, headache and sleep disorder management. MS in the 21st Century, a Steering Group of HCP specialists and patients with MS (PwMS), has created two communication tools designed for use by both patients and their HCPs.

Methods

The Steering Group first identified prominent issues in patient–HCP communication through group discussions and survey data. Following this, a series of workshops led to the development of two communication tools as potential solutions to these identified issues in communication.

Results

The two most prominent issues identified were HCP time constraints during appointments and the misalignment of patient and HCP priorities—the communication tools developed through the workshops were created to address these. The “myMS priorities” tool [see supplementary materials] is designed to maximize the use of consultation time while the “myMS commitments” tool [see supplementary materials] aims to improve patient–HCP shared decision-making.

Conclusions

The MS in the 21st Century Steering Group adopted a broad, iterative and collaborative approach in the development of these tools to help ensure they would be as useful as possible to both HCPs and PwMS. These tools have been developed through shared patient–HCP expertise and are based on existing tools in other therapy areas as well as a review of the existing literature and data from MS in the 21st Century Steering Group surveys. The next steps will focus on the validation of these tools through testing them in real-world environments and clinical trials.

Funding

Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-01071-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Novel Tool to Improve Shared Decision Making and Adherence in Multiple Sclerosis: Development and Preliminary Testing

Background. Most people with multiple sclerosis (MS) want to be involved in medical decision making about disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but new approaches are needed to overcome barriers to participation. Objectives. We sought to develop a shared decision-making (SDM) tool for MS DMTs, evaluate patient and provider responses to the tool, and address challenges encountered during development to guide a future trial. Methods. We created a patient-centered design process informed by image theory to develop the MS-SUPPORT SDM tool. Development included semistructured interviews and alpha and beta testing with MS patients and providers. Beta testing assessed dissemination and clinical integration strategies, decision-making processes, communication, and adherence. Patients evaluated the tool before and after a clinic visit. Results. MS-SUPPORT combines self-assessment with tailored feedback to help patients identify their treatment goals and preferences, correct misperceptions, frame decisions, and promote adherence. MS-SUPPORT generates a personal summary of their responses that patients can share with their provider to facilitate communication. Alpha testing (14 patients) identified areas needing improvement, resulting in reorganization and shortening of the tool. MS-SUPPORT was highly rated in beta testing (15 patients, 4 providers) on patient-provider communication, patient preparation, adherence, and other endpoints. Dissemination through both patient and provider networks appeared feasible. All patient testers wanted to share the summary report with their provider, but only 60% did. Limitations. Small sample size, no comparison group. Conclusions. The development process resulted in a patient-centered SDM tool for MS that may facilitate patient involvement in decision making, help providers understand their patients’ preferences, and improve adherence, though further testing is needed. Beta testing in real-world conditions was critical to prepare the tool for future testing and inform the design of future studies.

Development and usability testing of a patient decision aid for newly diagnosed relapsing multiple sclerosis patients

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients often struggle with treatment decisions, in part due to the increasing number of approved disease modifying therapies, each with different characteristics, and also since physicians can struggle to identify which of these characteristics matter most to each individual patient. Decision uncertainty can contribute to late treatment initiation and treatment non-adherence-causes of 'undertreatment' in MS. An interactive online patient decision aid that informs patients of their options, considers their individual preferences and goals, and facilitates conversations with their physicians, could improve how patients with relapsing forms of MS make evidence-based treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and evaluate a prototype patient decision aid (PtDA) for first-line disease modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

METHODS

Informed by previous studies and International Patient Decision Aid Standards guidelines, a prototype PtDA was developed for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis considering first line treatment. Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis were recruited from the University of British Columbia's Multiple Sclerosis Clinic to participate in either an online survey or a focus group. Online survey participants completed the PtDA, followed by measures of acceptability, usability, and preparedness for decision-making, and provided general feedback. Focus group participants assessed usability of the revised PtDA. The analysis of qualitative and quantitative data led to improvements of the PtDA prototype.

RESULTS

The prototype PtDA received high ratings for acceptability and usability, and after its use, participants reported high-levels of preparedness for decision-making. Analysis of all qualitative data identified three key themes: the need for credible information; the usefulness of the PtDA; and the importance of normalizing and sharing experiences. Nine content areas were identified for revision. Overall, participants found the PtDA to be a valuable tool for facilitating treatment decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

This mixed methods study has led to the development of a PtDA that can support patients with RRMS as they make treatment decisions. Future studies will assess the feasibility of implementation and the impact of the PtDA on both the timely treatment initiation and longer-term adherence.

Best Practices for Long-Term Monitoring and Follow-Up of Alemtuzumab-Treated MS Patients in Real-World Clinical Settings

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic autoimmune neurological disease that typically affects young adults, causing irreversible physical disability and cognitive impairment. Alemtuzumab, administered intravenously as 2 initial courses of 12 mg/day (5 consecutive days at baseline, and 3 consecutive days 12 months later), resulted in significantly greater improvements in clinical and MRI outcomes vs. subcutaneous interferon beta-1a over 2 years in patients with active relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) who were either treatment-naive (CARE-MS I; NCT00530348) or had an inadequate response to prior therapy (CARE-MS II; NCT00548405). Efficacy with alemtuzumab was maintained over 7 years in subsequent extension studies (NCT00930553; NCT02255656), in the absence of continuous treatment and with a consistent safety profile. There is an increased incidence of autoimmune events in patients treated with alemtuzumab (mainly thyroid events, but also immune thrombocytopenia and nephropathy), which imparts a need for mandatory safety monitoring for 4 years following the last treatment. The risk management strategy for alemtuzumab-treated patients includes laboratory monitoring and a comprehensive patient education and support program that enables early detection and effective management of autoimmune events, yielding optimal outcomes for MS patients. Here we provide an overview of tools and techniques that have been implemented in real-world clinical settings to reduce the burden of monitoring for both patients and healthcare providers, including customized educational materials, the use of social media, and interactive online databases for managing healthcare data. Many practices are also enhancing patient outreach efforts through coordination with specialized nursing services and ancillary caregivers. The best practice recommendations for safety monitoring described in this article, based on experiences in real-world clinical settings, may enable early detection and management of autoimmune events, and help with implementation of monitoring requirements while maximizing the benefits of alemtuzumab treatment for MS patients.

Information provision for people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

People with multiple sclerosis (MS) are confronted with a number of important uncertainties concerning many aspects of the disease. These include diagnosis, prognosis, disease course, disease-modifying therapies, symptomatic therapies, and non-pharmacological interventions, among others. While people with MS demand adequate information to be able to actively participate in medical decision making and to self manage their disease, it has been shown that patients' disease-related knowledge is poor, therefore guidelines recommend clear and concise high-quality information at all stages of the disease. Several studies have outlined communication and information deficits in the care of people with MS. However, only a few information and decision support programmes have been published.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of this updated review was to evaluate the effectiveness of information provision interventions for people with MS that aim to promote informed choice and improve patient-relevant outcomes, Further objectives were to evaluate the components and the developmental processes of the complex interventions used, to highlight the quantity and the certainty of the research evidence available, and to set an agenda for future research.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register, which contains trials from CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro, and clinical trials registries (29 November 2017) as well as other sources. We also searched reference lists of identified articles and contacted trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials, and quasi-randomised trials comparing information provision for people with MS or suspected MS (intervention groups) with usual care or other types of information provision (control groups) were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the retrieved articles for relevance and methodological quality and extracted data. Critical appraisal of studies addressed the risk of selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias. We contacted authors of relevant studies for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one new RCT (73 participants), which when added to the 10 previously included RCTs resulted in a total of 11 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria and were analysed (1387 participants overall; mean age, range: 31 to 51; percentage women, range: 63% to 100%; percentage relapsing-remitting MS course, range: 45% to 100%). The interventions addressed a variety of topics using different approaches for information provision in different settings. Topics included disease-modifying therapy, relapse management, self care strategies, fatigue management, family planning, and general health promotion. The active intervention components included decision aids, decision coaching, educational programmes, self care programmes, and personal interviews with physicians. All studies used one or more components, but the number and extent differed markedly between studies. The studies had a variable risk of bias. We did not perform meta-analyses due to marked clinical heterogeneity. All five studies assessing MS-related knowledge (505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) detected significant differences between groups as a result of the interventions, indicating that information provision may successfully increase participants' knowledge. There were mixed results on decision making (five studies, 793 participants; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (six studies, 671 participants; low-certainty evidence). No adverse events were detected in the seven studies reporting this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Information provision for people with MS seems to increase disease-related knowledge, with less clear results on decision making and quality of life. The included studies in this review reported no negative side effects of providing disease-related information to people with MS. Interpretation of study results remains challenging due to the marked heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures.

Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

The long way of implementing patient-centered care and shared decision making in Germany

The main focus of the paper is on the description of the development and current state of research and implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision making (SDM) after fifteen years of substantial advances in health policy and health services research. What is the current state of SDM in health policy? The "Patients' Rights Act" from 2013 standardizes all rights and responsibilities within the framework of medical treatment for German citizens and legal residents. This comprises the right to informed decisions, comprehensive and comprehensible information for patients, and decisions based on a clinician-patient-partnership. What is the current state of SDM interventions and patient decision support tools? SDM training programs for healthcare professionals have been developed. Their implementation in medical schools has been successful. Several decision support tools - primarily with support from health insurance funds and other public agencies - are to be implemented in routine care, specifically for national cancer screening programs. What is the current state of research and routine implementation? The German government and other public institutions are constantly funding research programs in which patient-centered care and shared decision-making are important topics. The development and implementation of decision tools for patients and professionals as well as the implementation of CME trainings for healthcare professionals require future efforts. What does the future look like? With the support of health policy and scientific evidence, transfer of PCC and SDM to practice is regarded as meaningful. Research can help to assess barriers, facilitators, and needs, and subsequently to develop and evaluate corresponding strategies to successfully implement PCC and SDM in routine care, which remains challenging.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

A new graphical format to communicate treatment effects to patients-A web-based randomized controlled trial

Objective

Patients making treatment decisions require understandable evidence‐based information. However, evidence on graphical presentation of benefits and side‐effects of medical treatments is not conclusive. The study evaluated a new space‐saving format, CLARIFIG (clarifying risk figures), aiming to facilitate accuracy of comprehension.

Methods

CLARIFIG displays groups of patients with and without treatment benefits as coloured sectors of a proportional bar graph representing in total 100 patients. Supplementary icons indicate the corresponding group's actual condition. The study used an application showing effects of immunotherapy intended to slow disease progression in multiple sclerosis (MS). In a four‐arm web‐based randomized controlled trial, CLARIFIG was compared to the reference standard, multifigure pictographs (MFP), regarding comprehension (primary outcome) and processing time. Both formats were presented as static and animated versions. People with MS were recruited through the website of the German MS society.

Results

Six hundred and eighty‐two patients were randomized and analysed for the primary end point. There were no differences in comprehension rates (MFP_static=46%, CLARIFIG_static=44%; P=.59; MFP_animated=23%, CLARIFIG_animated=30%; P=.134). Processing time for CLARIFIG was shorter only in the animated version (MFP_static=162 seconds, CLARIFIG_static=155 seconds; P=.653; MFP_animated=286 seconds, CLARIFIG_animated=189 seconds; P≤.001). However, both animated versions caused more wrong answers and longer processing time than static presentation (MFP_static vs _animated: P≤.001/.001, CLARIFIG_static vs _animated: P=.027/.017).

Conclusion

Comprehension of the new format is comparable to MFP. CLARIFIG has the potential to simplify presentation in more complex contexts such as comparison of several treatment options in patient decision aids, but further studies are needed.

Shared decision-making in multiple sclerosis

In a healthcare environment that is trying to achieve better clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction, shared decision-making is a well-established concept that is gaining more interest. Multiple sclerosis is a preference-sensitive condition and provides the opportunity to implement decision aids at various decision points in the disease process. Literature about patient education and outcomes of shared decision aids in multiple sclerosis has been growing over the last decade. In this topical review, we present an overview of the current literature on shared decision-making in multiple sclerosis. While limitations to the generalizability and applicability of decision aids exist, there is evidence that decision aids and shared decision-making can be valuable tools in the clinical care of multiple sclerosis patients.

Perception of risk and shared decision making process in multiple sclerosis

INTRODUCTION

Multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment has changed considerably in recent years thanks to the introduction of ever-more-powerful drugs. Unfortunately, the higher efficacies of these therapies are associated with increased risks of severe adverse events. In this scenario, neurologists and persons with MS (pwMSs) must now balance benefits and risks when making decisions regarding MS management. Areas covered: This review highlights the importance of the risk perception of pwMSs and their neurologists in the shared decision-making process in MS management, taking into account different ways improve the empowerment and engagement of pwMSs. Expert commentary: The shared decision-making process in MS is strongly influenced by an individual's risk perception, which is dynamic and influenced by the personal, emotional, social, and experiential factors of both the pwMSs and neurologists.

THE EFFECT OF EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTION ON KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-EFFICACY FOR PAIN CONTROL IN PATIENTS WITH MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

INTRODUCTION

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is one of the most common autoimmune diseases affecting the central nervous system. The prevalence of it is increasing in our country too. The pain from disorders can affect quality of life. Several studies have pointed to the improvement of patients through educational intervention. This study attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of an educational intervention based on raising the awareness and self-efficacy for pain control among patients with multiple sclerosis during 2015 under the coverage of Isfahan MS Society (IMSS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a quasi-experimental study involving pre-test, post-test and randomized control group conducted on 100 patients with MS referred to the Isfahan MS Society (IMSS). The educational intervention group learned the pain management self-care lesson during 4 weekly sessions. The data were collected through a self-structured questionnaire with adequate validity and reliability, containing demographic data, awareness and self-efficacy of pain control. The data were assessed through descriptive and analytical tests assisted by SPSS 17. The significant level was considered as P<0.05.

RESULTS

Concerning the questionnaire, 96% of the items were responded. Most participants were women. The frequency distribution of demographic variables was not significantly different between the two pre-test groups. After the intervention, the mean score of knowledge and efficacy among patients in the intervention group was significantly higher than the control group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Educational interventions can improve awareness and self-efficacy for pain control among patients with MS. Therefore, such interventions can be designed to reduce physical and psychological complications following multiple sclerosis.

Patient education programme on immunotherapy in multiple sclerosis (PEPIMS): a controlled rater-blinded study

Objective:

To investigate the effectiveness of a multi-component evidence-based education programme on disease modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis.

Design:

Controlled trial with two consecutive patient cohorts and a gap of two months between cohorts.

Setting:

Three neurological rehabilitation centres.

Subjects:

Patients with multiple sclerosis within rehabilitation.

Interventions:

Control group (CG) participants were recruited and received standard information. Two months later, intervention group (IG) participants were recruited and received a six-hour nurse-led interactive group education programme consisting of two parts and a comprehensive information brochure.

Main measures:

Primary endpoint was “informed choice”, comprising of adequate risk knowledge in combination with congruency between attitude towards immunotherapy and actual immunotherapy uptake. Further outcomes comprised risk knowledge, decision autonomy, anxiety and depression, self-efficacy, and fatigue.

Results:

A total of 156 patients were included (IG=75, CG=81). The intervention led to significantly more participants with informed choice (IG: 47% vs. CG: 23%, P=0.004). The rate of persons with adequate risk knowledge was significantly higher in the IG two weeks after the intervention (IG: 54% vs. CG: 31%, P=0.007), but not after six months (IG: 48% vs. CG: 31%, P=0.058). No significant differences were shown for positive attitude towards disease modifying therapy (IG: 62% vs. CG: 71%, P=0.29) and for disease modifying therapy status after six months (IG: 61.5% vs CG: 68.6%, P=0.39). Also no differences were found for autonomy preferences and decisional conflict after six months.

Conclusion:

Delivering evidence-based information on multiple sclerosis disease modifying therapies within a rehabilitation setting led to a marked increase of informed choices.

Enrolling and keeping participants in multiple sclerosis self-management interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to provide an estimate of expected enrolment and attrition rates based on published studies of existing self-management interventions for people with multiple sclerosis, and to identify contributing factors and impact on outcomes.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, OT Seeker, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases. Controlled trials with or without randomization using either a between-group or within-person design were included if they met specified criteria. A random-effect meta-regression analysis was conducted to estimate the overall enrolment and attrition proportions, effect of person- and study-related factors, and impact on outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 48 studies, comprising 4446 persons were identified. The estimated enrolment rate was 50.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 49.6 to 51.1) and the estimated attrition rates in the intervention and control groups were 16.8% (95% CI: 16.2 to 17.3) and 14.4% (95% CI: 13.8 to 14.9), respectively. The main reported reason for refusing to participate was lack of interest (70.6%), while the reported reasons for dropping out were mainly owing to medical issues (26.1%) and disliking the intervention (17.9%). Trial, programme, and patient-related variables were found to influence the enrolment and/or attrition rates. Studies that had a 10% higher attrition rate had an effect size that was larger by 0.19 (95% CI: 0.17 to 0.24).

CONCLUSION

Greater understanding of the factors associated with enrolment and attrition rates would help in planning and developing a more appealing self-management intervention that patients can easily accept and incorporate into their everyday lives.

Development and Feasibility of an Evidence-Based Patient Education Program for Managing Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: The "Fatigue Management in MS" Program (FatiMa)

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system. Fatigue is a common and disabling symptom, often causing decreased quality of life, social withdrawal, and unemployment. We developed and studied the feasibility of a cognitive-behavioral group intervention to manage fatigue in MS. We aimed to integrate the concepts of cognitive-behavioral therapy and evidence-based patient information.

METHODS

We conducted patient interviews and a focus group to assess patients' interest in and need for fatigue self-management training and developed the program accordingly. The program consists of six 90-minute modules, which were structured with the use of moderation cards, helping to guarantee treatment fidelity. The program was tested on three pilot groups (N = 16) in a rehabilitation center. Fatigue, depression, and coping self-efficacy were assessed at baseline and after the intervention. Acceptance and general satisfaction with the program were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Patient interviews elicited different characteristics of fatigue, suggesting that patients had different requirements. The program was very acceptable to patients. Pre-post assessments of the pilot study showed significantly improved scores on the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (P = .013) but not on the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions and the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology.

CONCLUSIONS

These preliminary results suggest that this program is a feasible cognitive-behavioral group training program that may improve coping self-efficacy and has the potential to subsequently reduce fatigue. The next step is evaluation of the program in a randomized controlled trial.

Contextual factors affecting autonomy for patients in Iranian hospitals: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Consideration of patient autonomy is an essential element in individualized, patient-centered, ethical care. Internal and external factors associated with patient autonomy are related to culture and it is not clear what they are in Iran. The aim of this study was to explore contextual factors affecting the autonomy of patients in Iranian hospitals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a qualitative study using conventional content analysis methods. Thirty-four participants (23 patients, 9 nurses, and 2 doctors) from three Iranian teaching hospitals, selected using purposive sampling, participated in semi-structured interviews. Unstructured observation and filed notes were other methods for data collection. The data were subjected to qualitative content analysis and analyzed using the MAXQDA-10 software.

RESULTS

Five categories and sixteen subcategories were identified. The five main categories related to patient autonomy were: Intrapersonal factors, physical health status, supportive family and friends, communication style, and organizational constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, this study uncovered contextual factors that the care team, managers, and planners in the health field should target in order to improve patient autonomy in Iranian hospitals.

Risk Knowledge in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (RIKNO 1.0)--Development of an Outcome Instrument for Educational Interventions

BACKGROUND

Adequate risk knowledge of patients is a prerequisite for shared decision making but few attempts have been made to develop assessment tools. Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of young adults with an increasing number of partially effective immunotherapies and therefore a paradigmatic disease to study patient involvement.

OBJECTIVE/METHODS

Based on an item bank of MS risk knowledge items and patient feedback including perceived relevance we developed a risk knowledge questionnaire for relapsing remitting (RR) MS (RIKNO 1.0) which was a primary outcome measure in a patient education trial (192 early RRMS patients).

RESULTS

Fourteen of the RIKNO 1.0 multiple-choice items were selected based on patient perceived relevance and item difficulty indices, and five on expert opinion. Mean item difficulty was 0.58, ranging from 0.14 to 0.79. Mean RIKNO 1.0 score increased after the educational intervention from 10.6 to 12.4 (p = 0.0003). Selected items were particularly difficult (e.g. those on absolute risk reductions of having a second relapse) and were answered correctly in only 30% of the patients, even after the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Despite its high difficulty, RIKNO 1.0 is a responsive instrument to assess risk knowledge in RRMS patients participating in educational interventions.

Evaluator-blinded trial evaluating nurse-led immunotherapy DEcision Coaching In persons with relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis (DECIMS) and accompanying process evaluation: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

Multiple sclerosis is a chronic neurological condition usually starting in early adulthood and regularly leading to severe disability. Immunotherapy options are growing in number and complexity, while costs of treatments are high and adherence rates remain low. Therefore, treatment decision-making has become more complex for patients. Structured decision coaching, based on the principles of evidence-based patient information and shared decision-making, has the potential to facilitate participation of individuals in the decision-making process.

This cluster randomised controlled trial follows the assumption that decision coaching by trained nurses, using evidence-based patient information and preference elicitation, will facilitate informed choices and induce higher decision quality, as well as better decisional adherence.

Methods/Design

The decision coaching programme will be evaluated through an evaluator-blinded superiority cluster randomised controlled trial, including 300 patients with suspected or definite relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, facing an immunotherapy decision. The clusters are 12 multiple sclerosis outpatient clinics in Germany. Further, the trial will be accompanied by a mixed-methods process evaluation and a cost-effectiveness study.

Nurses in the intervention group will be trained in shared decision-making, coaching, and evidence-based patient information principles. Patients who meet the inclusion criteria will receive decision coaching (intervention group) with up to three face-to-face coaching sessions with a trained nurse (decision coach) or counselling as usual (control group). Patients in both groups will be given access to an evidence-based online information tool.

The primary outcome is ‘informed choice’ after six months, assessed with the multi-dimensional measure of informed choice including the sub-dimensions risk knowledge (questionnaire), attitude concerning immunotherapy (questionnaire), and immunotherapy uptake (telephone survey). Secondary outcomes include decisional conflict, adherence to immunotherapy decisions, autonomy preference, planned behaviour, coping self-efficacy, and perceived involvement in coaching and decisional encounters. Safety outcomes are comprised of anxiety and depression and disease-specific quality of life.

Discussion

This trial will assess the effectiveness of a new model of patient decision support concerning MS-immunotherapy options. The delegation of treatment information provision from physicians to trained nurses bears the potential to change current doctor-focused practice in Germany.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials (identifier: ISRCTN37929939), May 27, 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0611-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A multicenter, prospective, quasi-experimental evaluation study of a patient education program to foster multiple sclerosis self-management competencies

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of the self-management training program "S.MS" for new multiple sclerosis (MS) patients.

METHOD

Multicenter, prospective, quasi-experimental study with 31 MS patients in the intervention group (training program) and 33 participants in the control group (CG) (brochures). Data were collected before, after and 6 months after the interventions. Analysis of change was done by ANCOVA with repeated measurements.

RESULTS

At baseline, participants in CG were younger at the time of diagnosis, suffered more frequently from relapsing-remitting MS and took more MS-medication on a permanent basis. The intervention had a stable significant effect on each dimension of self-management ability, on total self-management ability (ES=0.194, p<0.001), on anxiety (ES=0.193, p=0.001), and on disease-specific quality of life (ES=0.120, p=0.007). Regarding depression, a significant interaction effect of time and intervention could be observed (ES=0.106, p=0.011). No effect was found on disease-specific knowledge. High participant acceptance was reported.

CONCLUSION

"S.MS" participation was associated with a significant and sustained improvement of self-management abilities, anxiety and disease-specific quality of life in a quasi-experimental study design. Using RCT or CRT-designs would be desirable to further improve the evidence of treatment effectiveness.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This study provides substantial evidence that "S.MS" fosters patients' self-management ability.

Symptom changes in multiple sclerosis following psychological interventions: a systematic review

Background

Multiple Sclerosis is a disease of the central nervous system involving a variety of debilitating physical, sensory, cognitive and emotional symptoms. This literature review evaluated the impact of psychological interventions on the physiological symptoms associated with the illness.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases, as well as reference lists. Relevant studies were selected and assessed according to a preset protocol.

Results

The search produced 220 articles, with 22 meeting inclusion criteria for the review. A total of 5,705 subjects with Multiple Sclerosis were analyzed. Results from the included studies indicate a general improvement in both psychological and physiological outcomes following psychological treatment. The most highly influenced physical symptoms include fatigue, sleep disturbances, pain, and physical vitality.

Conclusions

Findings from the review suggest a positive relationship between psychological interventions and physiological Multiple Sclerosis symptoms. Implications for future research are discussed.

Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis--patients' experiences, information interests and responses to an education programme

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a key diagnostic and monitoring tool in multiple sclerosis (MS) management. However, many scientific uncertainties, especially concerning correlates to impairment and prognosis remain. Little is known about MS patients' experiences, knowledge, attitudes, and unmet information needs concerning MRI.

METHODS

We performed qualitative interviews (n = 5) and a survey (n = 104) with MS patients regarding MRI patient information, and basic MRI knowledge. Based on these findings an interactive training program of 2 hours was developed and piloted in n = 26 patients.

RESULTS

Interview analyses showed that patients often feel lost in the MRI scanner and left alone with MRI results and images while 90% of patients in the survey expressed a high interest in MRI education. Knowledge on MRI issues was fair with some important knowledge gaps. Major information interests were relevance of lesions as well as the prognostic and diagnostic value of MRI results. The education program was highly appreciated and resulted in a substantial knowledge increase. Patients reported that, based on the program, they felt more competent to engage in encounters with their physicians.

CONCLUSION

This work strongly supports the further development of an evidence-based MRI education program for MS patients to enhance participation in health-care.

Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) can reduce overuse of options not associated with benefits for all and respects patient rights, but has not yet been widely adopted in practice.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched for primary studies in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Specialsied Register and PsycINFO for the period March 2009 to August 2012. We searched the Clinical Trials.gov registry and the proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference. We scanned the bibliographies of relevant papers and studies. We contacted experts in the field to identify papers published after August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM where the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based outcome measures (OBOM) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROM).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The three overall categories of intervention were: interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. Studies in each category were compared to studies in the same category, to studies in the other two categories, and to usual care, resulting in nine comparison groups. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes separately. We calculated the median of the standardized mean difference (SMD), or risk difference, and range of effect across studies and categories of intervention. We assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies were included, 38 randomised and one non-randomised controlled trial. Categorical measures did not show any effect for any of the interventions. In OBOM studies, interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals had a positive effect compared to usual care (SMD of 2.83) and compared to interventions targeting patients alone (SMD of 1.42). Studies comparing interventions targeting patients with other interventions targeting patients had a positive effect, as did studies comparing interventions targeting healthcare professionals with usual care (SDM of 1.13 and 1.08 respectively). In PROM studies, only three comparisons showed any effect, patient compared to usual care (SMD of 0.21), patient compared to another patient (SDM of 0.29) and healthcare professional compared to another healthcare professional (SDM of 0.20). For all comparisons, interpretation of the results needs to consider the small number of studies, the heterogeneity, and some methodological issues. Overall quality of the evidence for the outcomes, assessed with the GRADE tool, ranged from low to very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether interventions to improve adoption of SDM are effective given the low quality of the evidence. However, any intervention that actively targets patients, healthcare professionals, or both, is better than none. Also, interventions targeting patients and healthcare professionals together show more promise than those targeting only one or the other.

Fostering adherence to injectable disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis requires long-term management, often with disease-modifying therapies. Poor medication adherence, especially to injectables, can increase relapse and hospitalisation rates and consume healthcare resources. We discuss adherence definitions and terminology and its prevalence in multiple sclerosis (MS). Typical causes of poor adherence in patients with MS include: insufficient efficacy or tolerability, concurrent disorders, and consequences of MS (e.g., forgetfulness, depression, fatigue and poor motor skills). Ways to improve adherence rates are reviewed, focusing on interdisciplinary healthcare teams, good communication between healthcare workers and patients (and their families), ongoing support and digital tools to promote adherence. We consider open communication and continuing education to be key, and that MS nurses have a pivotal role in ensuring patients' adherence to MS medicines.

Rehabilitation interventions for the management of multiple sclerosis relapse: a short scoping review

BACKGROUND

This review was undertaken to identify and summarize the existing evidence regarding postrelapse rehabilitation interventions in people with multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted within the following databases: CINAHL Plus with Full Text, MEDLINE via Ovid, and PsycINFO via CSA Illumina. The following terms were searched as subject headings or keywords: choice behavior, counseling, decision making, disease management, health education, health promotion, patient education, patient participation, patient satisfaction, psychotherapy, rehabilitation, self-care, self-management. Then these searches were combined with the subject headings for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and subject heading or keywords for recurrence/relapse. Through the initial database search and additional citation search, 260 potentially relevant citations were identified. After screening the titles and abstracts as well as the citation search results, the reviewers agreed to keep five studies for the full-text reviews. Three rehabilitation intervention studies were included in the final review.

RESULTS

A combined total of 145 adults who experienced a relapse within the previous 5 months received 3 to 18 days of rehabilitation. All three studies suggested the benefit of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for individuals with MS to improve impairment or disability.

CONCLUSIONS

The three multidisciplinary rehabilitation interventions included in this review appear to be effective in improving impairment or disability of people with MS who experienced a relapse. Given the limited number of studies and their methodological limitations, the results must be interpreted cautiously. Further investigation is needed to better understand the rehabilitation needs of people with MS after relapse in order to improve research and care.

Shared decision-making and comparative effectiveness research for patients with chronic conditions: an urgent synergy for better health

Chronic conditions are the most important cause of morbidity, mortality and health expense in the USA. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) seeks to provide evidence supporting the relative value of alternative courses of action. This research often concludes with estimates of the likelihood of desirable and undesirable outcomes associated with each option. Patients with chronic conditions should engage with their clinicians in deciding which of these options best fits their goals and context. In practicing shared decision-making (SDM), clinicians and patients should make use of CER to inform their deliberations. In these ways, SDM and CER are interrelated. SDM translates CER into patient-centered practice, while CER provides the backbone evidence about options and outcomes in SDM interventions. In this review, we explore the potential for a SDM-CER synergy in improving healthcare for patients with chronic conditions.

Information provision for people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

People with multiple sclerosis (MS) are confronted with a number of important uncertainties concerning many aspects of the disease. Among others, these include diagnosis, prognosis, disease course, disease-modifying therapies, symptomatic therapies and non-pharmacological interventions. It has been shown that people with MS demand adequate information to be able to actively participate in medical decision making and to self-manage their disease. On the other hand, it has been found that patients' disease-related knowledge is poor. Therefore, guidelines have recommended clear and concise high-quality information at all stages of the disease. Several studies have outlined communication and information deficits in the care of people with MS and, accordingly, a number of information and decision support programmes have been published.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of information provision interventions for people with MS that aim to promote informed choice and improve patient-relevant outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register which contains trials from CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro and clinical trials registries (12 June 2013) as well as other sources. In addition, we searched PsycINFO, trial registries, and reference lists of identified articles. We also contacted trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, cluster randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials comparing information provision for people with MS or suspected MS (intervention groups) with usual care or other types of information provision (control groups) were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the retrieved articles for relevance and methodological quality, and extracted data. Critical appraisal of studies addressed the risk of selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias and detection bias. We contacted authors of relevant studies for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten randomised controlled trials involving a total of 1314 participants met the inclusion criteria and were analysed. The interventions addressed a variety of topics using different approaches for information provision in different settings. Topics included disease-modifying therapy, relapse management, self-care strategies, fatigue management, family planning and general health promotion. The interventions contained decision aids, educational programmes, self-care interventions and personal interviews with physicians. All interventions were complex interventions using more than one active component, but the number and extent of the intervention components differed markedly between studies. The studies had a variable risk of bias. We did not perform meta-analyses due to marked clinical heterogeneity. All four studies assessing MS-related knowledge (524 participants; moderate-quality evidence) detected significant differences between groups as a result of the interventions indicating that information provision may successfully increase participants' knowledge. There were mixed results from four studies reporting effects on decision making (836 participants; low-quality evidence) and from five studies assessing quality of life (605 participants; low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in the six studies reporting on adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Information provision for people with MS seems to increase disease-related knowledge, with less clear results on decision making and quality of life. There seem to be no negative side effects from informing patients about their disease. Interpretation of study results remains challenging due to the marked heterogeneity of the interventions and outcome measures.

Evidence-based patient information programme in early multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of an evidence-based patient information programme aiming to increase informed choice in patients with early multiple sclerosis (MS).

BACKGROUND

Patients with early MS face a number of uncertainties concerning diagnosis, prognosis and effectiveness of immunotherapy. Prior studies suggest that evidence-based patient information combined with group education can promote informed choice in MS patients.

METHODS

A 12-month, six-centre, double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial with 192 patients with a diagnosis of confirmed relapsing-remitting MS or clinical isolated syndrome in Germany. A 4-h interactive evidence-based educational programme was compared with a 4-h MS-specific stress management programme. The primary endpoint was informed choice after 6 months comprising risk knowledge and congruency between attitude towards immunotherapy and actual immunotherapy uptake. Secondary endpoints included autonomy preference, decision autonomy, decisional conflict and satisfaction, anxiety and depression, and number of immunotherapies.

RESULTS

For the primary endpoint, a significant difference was shown with 50 of 85 (59%) participants in the intervention group achieving informed choice after 6 months compared with 18 of 89 (20%) in the control group (OR 0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.4), p<0.001). Four weeks after the intervention, more participants in the intervention group showed good risk knowledge (difference between groups 39% (95% CI 26% to 53%), p<0.001). There were no significant differences between groups for attitude towards immunotherapy and for immunotherapy uptake. There were trends towards increased autonomy preference after the intervention and increased adherence to immunotherapies in the intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention significantly increased informed choice and relevant risk knowledge without negative side effects.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:A) 'choice made' attributes;B) 'decision-making process' attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); andc) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Behavioral interventions in multiple sclerosis: a biopsychosocial perspective

Managing uncertainty is a major challenge associated with the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS). In addition to physical symptoms, neuropsychiatric symptoms are highly prevalent in this disease. Depression in particular is more common in MS than in other chronic diseases. While substantial achievements have been made in the therapy of MS and an increasing number of immunomodulatory treatments are now available, the long-term benefits of these are still a matter of debate. Importantly, while the approved therapies show good efficacy on inflammatory lesions and relapse rate, and may slow certain aspects of disease progression, improvements in function have rarely been reported. On the other hand, behavioral interventions have recently been shown to significantly improve fatigue and depression as well as motor function. In addition, recent evidence suggests that group education or face-to-face behavioral interventions may decrease inflammatory disease activity (such as relapse rate or lesion formation measured by MRI). Therefore, behavioral interventions not only ameliorate symptoms but may have the potential to modify the disease process itself.

Applying the theory of planned behaviour to multiple sclerosis patients' decisions on disease modifying therapy--questionnaire concept and validation

BACKGROUND

Patients making important medical decisions need to evaluate complex information in the light of their own beliefs, attitudes and priorities. The process can be considered in terms of the theory of planned behaviour. Decision support technologies aim at helping patients making informed treatment choices. Instruments assessing informed choices need to include risk knowledge, attitude (towards therapy) and actual uptake. However, mechanisms by which decision support achieves its goals are poorly understood.Our aim was therefore to develop and validate an instrument modeling the process of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients' decision making about whether to undergo disease modifying (immuno-)therapies (DMT).

METHODS

We constructed a 30-item patient administered questionnaire to access the elaboration of decisions about DMT in MS according to the theory of planned behaviour. MS-patients' belief composites regarding immunotherapy were classified according to the domains "attitude", "subjective social norm" and "control beliefs" and within each domain to either "expectations" or "values" yielding 6 sub-domains. A randomized controlled trial (n = 192) evaluating an evidence based educational intervention tested the instrument's predictive power regarding intention to use immunotherapy and its sensitivity to the intervention.

RESULTS

The psychometric properties of the questionnaire were satisfactory (mean item difficulty 62, mean SD 0.9, range 0-3). Responses explain up to 68% of the variability in the intention to use DMT was explained by up to 68% in the total sample. Four weeks after an educational intervention, predictive power was higher in the intervention (IG) compared to the control group (CG) (intention estimate: CG 56% / IG 69%, p = .179; three domains CG 56% / IG 74%, p = .047; six sub-domains CG 64% / IG 78%, p = .073). The IG held more critical beliefs towards immunotherapy (p = .002) and were less willing to comply with social norm (p = .012).

CONCLUSIONS

The questionnaire seems to provide a valid way of explaining patients' inherent decision processes and to be sensitive towards varying levels of elaboration. Similar tools based on the theory of planned behaviour could be applied to other decision making scenarios.