Prioritizing the healthcare access concerns of Canadians with MS

Access to Care and Health-Related Quality of Life in Multiple Sclerosis

Background and Objectives

Despite their high health care use, it is unclear whether the health care needs of people with MS are being met and what their priorities are. We assessed priorities for access to, and affordability of care, by people living with MS in the United States. We also tested the association between perceived inadequate access to care and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

Methods

In Fall 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of participants in the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis Registry about access to care and HRQoL (Health Utilities Index Mark III). We used multivariable polytomous logistic regression to test sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with access to care. We used multivariable linear regression analysis to test the association between access to care and HRQoL.

Results

We included 4,914 respondents in the analysis, of whom 3,974 (80.9%) were women, with a mean (SD) age 64.4 (9.9) years. The providers who were most reported as needed but inaccessible were complementary providers (35.5%), followed by allied health providers (24.2%), occupational therapists (22.7%), and mental health providers (20.7%). Over 80% of participants reported that it was important or very important to be able to get an appointment with their primary MS health care provider when needed, to have sufficient time in their appointments to explain their concerns, to see their neurologist if their status changed, and that their health care providers communicated to coordinate their care. Participants who reported needing to see the provider but not having access or seeing the provider but would like to see them more often had lower HRQOL (ranging from -0.059 to -0.176) than participants who saw the provider as much as needed.

Discussion

Gaps in access to care persist for people with MS in the United States and substantially affect HRQoL. Improving access to care for people with MS should be a health system priority.

The Barancik lecture: Comorbidity in multiple sclerosis-Looking backward, looking forward

Comorbidity is highly prevalent in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) throughout their disease course. In the last 15 years, our understanding of the association between comorbidity and outcomes such as relapses, disability progressive, health-related quality of life, health care use, and mortality has grown substantially. The broad adverse impacts of comorbidity on these outcomes point to the need to prevent and treat comorbidity effectively in people with MS. This requires having the necessary tools to evaluate comorbidity, an understanding of how MS affects management of comorbidity now, testing of interventions tailored to people with MS, and determining the best models of care to optimize comorbidity management.

A Qualitative, Multiperspective Inquiry of Multiple Sclerosis Telemedicine in the United States

BACKGROUND

Telemedicine has expanded access to high-quality, appropriate, and affordable health care for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). This study explored how the expansion of MS telemedicine is perceived and experienced by people with MS, health care providers (HCPs), and payers and policy experts (PYs).

METHODS

Forty-five semistructured interviews with 20 individuals with MS, 15 HCPs, and 10 PYs were conducted between September 2020 and January 2021. The interviews were recorded on a televideo platform, transcribed, and analyzed for themes using qualitative data software.

RESULTS

Interviews revealed the following 4 themes. Technology: Telemedicine increases access and convenience. Technical challenges were the most cited downside to telemedicine. Clinical encounters: Confidence in MS care via telemedicine varies. Virtual "house calls" have clinical benefits. Financing and infrastructure: Reimbursement parity is critical to utilization and expansion of telemedicine. Stakeholders are hopeful and fearful as infrastructure and business models begin to shift. Shifting expectations: The familiar structure of the office visit is currently absent in telemedicine. Telemedicine visits need more intentionality from both providers and patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Telemedicine is an efficient, convenient way to deliver and receive many aspects of MS care. To expand telemedicine care, many HCPs need more training and experience, people with MS need guidance to optimize their care, and PYs in the United States need to pass legislation and adjust business models to incorporate benefits and reimbursement for telemedicine health in insurance plans. The future is promising for the ongoing use of telemedicine to improve MS care, and stakeholders should work to preserve and expand the policy changes made during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The effect of nurse practitioner (NP-led) care on health-related quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis - a randomized trial

Background

Care for People with Multiple Sclerosis (PwMS) is increasingly complex, requiring innovations in care. Canada has high rates of MS; it is challenging for general neurologists to optimally care for PwMS with busy office practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of add-on Nurse Practitioner (NP)-led care for PwMS on depression and anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS), compared to usual care (community neurologist, family physician).

Methods

PwMS followed by community neurologists were randomized to add-on NP-led or Usual care for 6 months. Primary outcome was the change in HADS at 3 months. Secondary outcomes were HADS (6 months), EQ5D, MSIF, CAREQOL-MS, at 3 and 6 months, and Consultant Satisfaction Survey (6 months).

Results

We recruited 248 participants; 228 completed the trial (NP-led care arm n = 120, Usual care arm n = 108). There were no significant baseline differences between groups. Study subjects were highly educated (71.05%), working full-time (41.23%), living independently (68.86%), with mean age of 47.32 (11.09), mean EDSS 2.53 (SD 2.06), mean duration since MS diagnosis 12.18 years (SD 8.82) and 85% had relapsing remitting MS. Mean change in HADS depression (3 months) was: -0.41 (SD 2.81) NP-led care group vs 1.11 (2.98) Usual care group p = 0.001, sustained at 6 months; for anxiety, − 0.32 (2.73) NP-led care group vs 0.42 (2.82) Usual care group, p = 0.059. Other secondary outcomes were not significantly different. There was no difference in satisfaction of care in the NP-led care arm (63.83 (5.63)) vs Usual care (62.82 (5.45)), p = 0.194).

Conclusion

Add-on NP-led care improved depression compared to usual neurologist care and 3 and 6 months in PwMS, and there was no difference in satisfaction with care. Further research is needed to explore how NPs could enrich care provided for PwMS in healthcare settings.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04388592, 14/05/2020).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-022-02809-9.

Models of Care in Multiple Sclerosis: A Survey of Canadian Health Providers

Objective

Little work has evaluated integrated models of care in multiple sclerosis (MS) and the composition of MS care teams across Canada is largely unknown. We aimed to gather information regarding existing models of MS care across Canada, and to assess the perceptions of health care providers (HCPs) regarding the models of care required to fully meet the needs of the person with MS.

Methods

We conducted an anonymous online survey targeting Canadian HCPs working in MS Clinics, and neurologists delivering MS care whether or not they were based in an MS Clinic. We queried the types of HCPs delivering care within formal MS Clinics, wait times for HCPs, the perceived importance of different types of HCPs for good quality care, assessments conducted, and whether clinic databases were used. We summarized survey responses using descriptive statistics.

Results

Of the 716 HCPs to whom the survey was distributed, 100 (13.9%) people responded. Of the 100 respondents, 85 (85%) indicated that their clinical practice included people with MS and responded to specific questions about clinical care. The most common types of providers within MS Clinics with integrated models of care were neurologists and MS nurses. Of 23 responding MS Clinics, 10 (43.5%) indicated that there were not enough neurologists, and 16 (69.6%) indicated that there were not enough non-neurologist HCPs to provide adequate care. More than 50% of clinics reported wait times exceeding 3 months for physiatrists, physiotherapists, psychiatrists, psychologists, neuropsychologists and urologists; in some clinics wait times for these providers exceeded 1 year. Multiple disciplines were identified as important or very important for delivering good quality MS care. Over 90% of respondents thought it was important for neurologists, nurse practitioners, MS nurses and psychiatrists to be co-located within MS Clinics.

Conclusion

Canadian HCPs viewed the ideal MS service as being multidisciplinary in nature and ideally integrated. Efforts are needed to improve timely access to specialized MS care in Canada, and to evaluate how outcomes are influenced by access to care.