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.

Diagnosis concealment is prevalent in MS, and associated with diagnosis experience

BACKGROUND

Receiving a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) can be stressful; later, patients may conceal their diagnosis. Here, we aimed to (1) assess prevalence of disclosure and concealment behaviors, and (2) explore whether diagnosis experience is associated with later concealment and if MS provider engagement on this topic modifies concealment.

METHODS

In a survey-based study, MS patients completed DISCO-MS assessing disclosure and concealment and responded to questions about diagnosis experience and practitioner attention to disclosure. Frequency analysis and Pearson's correlations were used in exploratory analyses.

RESULTS

428 adults with MS participated. 49% (N = 201) conceal their diagnosis. Higher education [t(405) = 3.66, p < 0.001], younger age (r = -0.15, p = 0.002), and shorter disease duration (r = -0.18, p = 0.010) were associated with higher concealment. 39% (N = 159) anticipate negative consequences of disclosure. Individuals reporting positive diagnosis experience (26%, N = 102) were less likely to conceal later in disease course compared to those with negative experience (34%, N = 136) [t(233) = 2.483, p = 0.014]. Patients whose MS providers discussed disclosure (23%, N = 73) anticipated less negative consequences of disclosure [t(323) = 2.475, p = 0.014].

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnosis concealment is common in MS. Favorable diagnosis experience and provider attention to the topic of disclosure throughout the MS disease course may influence diagnosis concealment.

"I Will Respect the Autonomy of My Patient": A Scoping Review of Shared Decision Making in Multiple Sclerosis

Background

Patient autonomy is a bioethical principle that was strengthened in the revised Declaration of Geneva. Shared decision making (SDM) is particularly relevant in the management of multiple sclerosis (MS) because many preference-sensitive decisions have to be made during the disease course. We aimed to summarize the available evidence on SDM in the MS field and to inform future research and practice.

Methods

We performed a scoping review by searching MEDLINE (past 5 years). Studies were included if they reported primary/secondary research and focused on SDM related to people with MS. Data were grouped into topics, with results presented in narrative form.

Results

From 865 references, we included 55 studies conducted mostly in Europe. Half of the studies were observational, followed by qualitative (20%), mixed-methods (17%), randomized controlled trials (RCTs, 5%), quasi-experimental (5%), and reviews (4%). Most studies addressed people with relapsing-remitting MS (85%); the remaining addressed health care professionals, patients' significant others, or a combination. We identified five main topics: decisions on disease-modifying drugs, decisions on chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency treatment, information provision and patient education, health literacy, and risk knowledge.

Conclusions

The high proportion of included studies on SDM in MS in Europe suggests an earlier adoption of these concepts in this area. Decisions on disease-modifying drugs was the prevalent topic. Only 5% of studies were RCTs, indicating that more research is needed to study the effectiveness of SDM interventions. Studies addressing people with primary and secondary progressive MS are also needed.

Factors influencing patient satisfaction with the first diagnostic consultation in multiple sclerosis: a Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Registry (SMSR) study

BACKGROUND

Patient satisfaction is predictive of adherence, malpractice litigation and doctor-switching.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate which factors of the first diagnostic consultation (FDC) influence patient satisfaction and which topics persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) thought were missing.

METHODS

Using retrospective patient-reported data of the Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Registry from PwMS with relapsing disease onset, we fitted ordered logistic regression models on satisfaction with FDC, with socio-demographic and FDC features as explanatory factors.

RESULTS

386 PwMS diagnosed after 1995 were included. Good satisfaction with the FDC was associated with a conversation more than 20 min [multivariable odds ratio, 95% confidence interval 3.9 (2.42; 6.27)], covering many topics [1.35 (1.19; 1.54) per additional topic], the presence of a significant others [1.74 (1.03; 2.94) ], and shared decision making [3.39 (1.74; 6.59)]. Not receiving a specific diagnosis was main driver for low satisfaction [0.29 (0.15; 0.55)]. Main missing topics concerned long-term consequences (reported by 6.7%), psychological aspects (6.2%) and how to obtain support and further information (5.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

A conversation of more than 20 min covering many MS relevant topics, a clear communication of the diagnosis, the presence of a close relative or significant other, as well as shared decision making enhanced patient satisfaction with the FDC. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02980640.

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.

Managing the transition (ManTra): a resource for persons with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis and their health professionals: protocol for a mixed-methods study in Italy

INTRODUCTION

15 years after clinical onset, about 50% of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis convert to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS). Notwithstanding the importance of this transition, knowledge of the experiences and needs of patients and carers is fragmentary, and targeted interventions are not available. Managing the Transition to SPMS (ManTra) is a mixed methodology project to develop and test a user-led resource for newly diagnosed patients with SPMS. Here, we describe the developmental phase, consisting of a literature review and a new research study involving key stakeholders, in which we construct the resource.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Round 1: The literature review and study will be conducted in parallel. The latter will identify patient needs using a qualitative approach consisting of: personal semistructured interviews with >15 recently diagnosed patients with SPMS; three focus group meetings (one with significant others of patients, one with neurologists and one with other health professionals caring for patients with SPMS). An online survey (>200 recently diagnosed Italian patients with SPMS) will follow to verify needs in a larger independent sample. An expert panel will outline a set of candidate resources/interventions that aim to satisfy the needs thus identified. Round 2: Consensus on the final resource will be obtained in a 1-day meeting of recently diagnosed patients with SPMS, significant others, health professionals and other stakeholders, using the nominal group technique. The expert panel will refine the resource, identify the outcome measures to assess its efficacy and ascertain the most suitable comparator (ManTra Phase 2, not part of this protocol).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the ethics committees of each of the involved centres: Foundation IRCCS Neurological Institute C Besta, Milan ; G D'Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara and the Aldo Moro University of Bari. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences and a lay summary sent to participants.

Evaluation of French-language internet sites dealing with multiple sclerosis

Background

Information available on the internet has changed patient–neurologist relationships. Its evaluation for multiple sclerosis is only partial, regardless of the language used.

Objective

We aim to evaluate the content quality and ranking indexes of French-language sites dealing with multiple sclerosis.

Methods

Two French terms and three search engines were used to identify the sites whose ranking indexes were calculated according to their positions on each page designated by the search engines. Three evaluators used the DISCERN questionnaire to assess the content quality of the 25 selected sites. The sites were classified according to the mean of the evaluators’ grades. Grading agreement between evaluators was calculated. Ranking indexes were computed as a rank/100.

Results

Content level was deemed mediocre, with poor referencing of the information provided. The naïve and two expert evaluators’ grades differed. Content quality disparity was found within the different website categories, except for institutional sites. No correlation was found between content quality and ranking index.

Conclusion

The information available was heterogeneous. Physicians should guide patients in their internet searches for information so that they can benefit from good-quality input which is potentially able to improve their management.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Effective communication at the point of multiple sclerosis diagnosis

As a consequence of the current shortened diagnostic workup, people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) are rapidly confronted with a disease of uncertain prognosis that requires complex treatment decisions. This paper reviews studies that have assessed the experiences of PwMS in the peri-diagnostic period and have evaluated the efficacy of interventions providing information at this critical moment. The studies found that the emotional burden on PwMS at diagnosis was high, and emphasised the need for careful monitoring and management of mood symptoms (chiefly anxiety). Information provision did not affect anxiety symptoms but improved patients’ knowledge of their condition, the achievement of ‘informed choice’, and satisfaction with the diagnosis communication.

It is vital to develop and implement information and decision aids for PwMS, but this is resource intensive, and international collaboration may be a way forward. The use of patient self-assessed outcome measures that appraise the quality of diagnosis communication is also important to allow health services to understand and meet the needs and preferences of PwMS.