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

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.

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.

Understanding Health Empowerment From the Perspective of Information Processing: Questionnaire Study

Background

Massive, easily accessible online health information empowers users to cope with health problems better. Most patients search for relevant online health information before seeing a doctor to alleviate information asymmetry. However, the mechanism of how online health information affects health empowerment is still unclear.

Objective

To study how online health information processing affects health empowerment.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire study that included 343 samples from participants who had searched online health information before the consultation. Respondents' perceptions of online information cues, benefits, health literacy, and health empowerment were assessed.

Results

Perceived argument quality and perceived source credibility have significant and positive effects on perceived information benefits, but only perceived argument quality has a significant effect on perceived decision-making benefits. Two types of perceived benefits, in turn, affect health empowerment. The effects of perceived argument quality on perceived informational benefits and perceived decision-making benefits on health empowerment are significantly stronger for the high health literacy group than the low health literacy group (t₂₆₉=7.156, P<.001; t₂₆₉=23.240, P<.001). While, the effects of perceived source credibility on perceived informational benefits and perceived informational benefits on health empowerment are significantly weaker for the high health literacy group than the low health literacy group (t₂₆₉=–10.497, P<.001; t₂₆₉=–6.344, P<.001). The effect of perceived argument quality on perceived informational benefits shows no significant difference between high and low health literacy groups.

Conclusions

 In the context of online health information, perceived information benefits and perceived decision-making benefits are the antecedents of health empowerment, which in turn will be affected by perceived argument quality and perceived source credibility. Health literacy plays a moderating role in the relationship of some variables. To maximize health empowerment, online health information providers should strengthen information quality and provide differentiated information services based on users' health literacy.

Evaluation of an interactive web-based programme on relapse management for people with multiple sclerosis (POWER@MS2): study protocol for a process evaluation accompanying a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Process evaluations accompanying complex interventions examine the implementation process of the underlying intervention, identify mechanisms of impact and assess contextual factors. This paper presents the protocol for a process evaluation conducted alongside the randomised controlled trial POWER@MS2. The trial comprises the evaluation of a web-based complex intervention on relapse management in 188 people with multiple sclerosis conducted in 20 centres. The web-based intervention programme focuses on relapse treatment decision making and includes a decision aid, a nurse-led webinar and an online chat. With the process evaluation presented here, we aim to assess participants' responses to and interactions with the intervention to understand how and why the intervention produces change.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A mixed methods design is used to explore the acceptance of the intervention as well as its use and impact on participants. Participants are people with multiple sclerosis, neurologists, nurses and stakeholders. Quantitative semistandardised evaluation forms will be collected throughout the study. Qualitative semistructured telephone interviews will be conducted at the end of the study with selected participants, especially people with multiple sclerosis and neurologists. Quantitative data will be collected and analysed descriptively. Based on the results, the qualitative interviews will be conducted and analysed thematically, and the results will be merged in a joint display table.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The process evaluation has received ethical approval from the Ethical Committee of the University of Lübeck (reference 19-024). Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at conferences, meetings and on relevant patient websites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04233970.

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.

Chances and challenges of a long-term data repository in multiple sclerosis: 20th birthday of the German MS registry

In 2001, the German Multiple Sclerosis Society, facing lack of data, founded the German MS Registry (GMSR) as a long-term data repository for MS healthcare research. By the establishment of a network of participating neurological centres of different healthcare sectors across Germany, GMSR provides observational real-world data on long-term disease progression, sociodemographic factors, treatment and the healthcare status of people with MS. This paper aims to illustrate the framework of the GMSR. Structure, design and data quality processes as well as collaborations of the GMSR are presented. The registry’s dataset, status and results are discussed. As of 08 January 2021, 187 centres from different healthcare sectors participate in the GMSR. Following its infrastructure and dataset specification upgrades in 2014, more than 196,000 visits have been recorded relating to more than 33,000 persons with MS (PwMS). The GMSR enables monitoring of PwMS in Germany, supports scientific research projects, and collaborates with national and international MS data repositories and initiatives. With its recent pharmacovigilance extension, it aligns with EMA recommendations and helps to ensure early detection of therapy-related safety signals.

Correction to: 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

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.