Premium
Informed shared decision making about immunotherapy for patients with multiple sclerosis (ISDIMS): a randomized controlled trial
Author(s) -
Kasper J.,
Köpke S.,
Mühlhauser I.,
Nübling M.,
Heesen C.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
european journal of neurology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.881
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1468-1331
pISSN - 1351-5101
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2008.02313.x
Subject(s) - medicine , randomized controlled trial , immunotherapy , multiple sclerosis , intervention (counseling) , clinical endpoint , preference , physical therapy , patient participation , medline , immunology , cancer , nursing , microeconomics , political science , economics , law
Background and purpose: To evaluate the effects of an evidence‐based patient decision aid (DA) on multiple sclerosis (MS) immunotherapy. Methods: Two hundred and ninety‐seven MS patients who were considering or reconsidering immunotherapy participated in a randomized community‐based controlled trial in Germany. An intervention group (IG) received the DA and a control group (CG) received standard information. Primary outcome measure was the match between the patient’s preferred and actual roles during consultation with the physician. Secondary end‐point was treatment choice. The course of the decision‐making process and patients` evaluation of the decision were also evaluated. Data were collected at baseline, after receiving the information, after consultation with the physician and 6 months after baseline. Results: The percentage of preference matches did not differ between groups (IG 49%, CG 51%, P = 0.71). There were no differences in immunotherapy choices between groups. IG patients temporarily became more critical of immunotherapy and rated the information as significantly more helpful. Conclusions: Although the intervention led to intensified processing of the information it affected neither the roles adopted in physician–patient encounters nor the immunotherapy choices made. Providing patients with balanced information may not be sufficient to alter the decision‐making process.