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

Jürgen Kasper, Sascha Köpke, Korbinian Fischer, Nina Schäffler, Imke Backhus, Alessandra Solari, Christoph Heesen, Jürgen Kasper, Sascha Köpke, Korbinian Fischer, Nina Schäffler, Imke Backhus, Alessandra Solari, Christoph Heesen

Abstract

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.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Illustration of theory of planned behaviour, I Ajzen [9].

References

    1. O'Connor AM, Bennett CL, Stacey D, Barry M, Col NF, Eden KB, Entwistle VA, Fiset V, Holmes-Rovner M, Khangura S, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Rovner D. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;3:CD00143.
    1. Entwistle VA, Watt IS, Gilhooly K, Bugge C, Haites N. Assessing patients' participation and quality of decision making: insights from a study of routine practice in diverse settings. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;55:105–113. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2003.08.005.
    1. Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S. A measure of informed choice. Health Expect. 2001;4:99–108. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00140.x.
    1. Kasper J, Légaré F, Scheibler F, Geiger F. Turning signals into meaning – ‘Shared decision making’ meets communication theory. Health Expect. 2011.
    1. Scholl I, Loon MK, Sepucha K, Elwyn G, Légaré F, Härter M, Dirmaier J. Measurement of shared decision making - a review of instruments. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen (ZEFQ) 2011;105:313–324. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2011.04.012.
    1. Edwards A, Elwyn G. Shared decision making in health care. Achieving evidence-based patient choice. Oxford University Press, New York; 2009. Shared decision making in health care. Achieving evidence-based patient choice; pp. 3–8.
    1. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA; 1975.
    1. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer-Verlag, New York; 1986.
    1. Ajzen I. In: Action control: From cognition to behaviour. Kuhl J, Beckmann J, editor. Springer-Verlag, New York; 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour; pp. 11–39.
    1. Cooke R, French DP. How well do the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour predict intentions and attendance at screening programmes? A meta-analysis. Psychol Health. 2008;7:745–765.
    1. Munro S, Lewin S, Swart T, Volmink J. A review of health behaviour theories: how useful are these for developing interventions to promote long-term medication adherence for TB and HIV/AIDS? BMC Publ Health. 2007;7:104. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-7-104.
    1. Krones T, Keller H, Becker A, Sönnichsen A, Baum E, Donner-Banzhoff N. The theory of planned behaviour in a randomized trial of a decision aid on cardiovascular risk prevention. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(2):169–176. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.06.010.
    1. Frosch DL, Légaré F, Fishbein M, Elwyn G. Adjuncts or adversaries to shared decision-making? Applying the integrative model of behaviour to the role and design of decision support interventions in healthcare interactions. BMC Implementation Science. 2009;4:73. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-73.
    1. Sivell S, Edwards A, Elwyn G, Manstead AS. Understanding surgery choices for breast cancer: how might the theory of planned behaviour and the common sense model contribute to decision support interventions? Health Expect. 2011;1:6–19.
    1. Sutton S. Explaining and predicting intentions and behaviour: how well are we doing? J Appl Soc Psychol. 1998;28:1318–1339.
    1. Hardeman W, Johnston M, Johnston DW, Bonetti D, Wareman NJ, Kinmonth AL. Application of the theory of planned behaviours in behaviour change interventions: a systematic review. Psychol Health. 2002;17:123–158. doi: 10.1080/08870440290013644a.
    1. Godin G, Kok G. The theory of planned behaviour: a review of its applications to health-related behaviours. Am J Health Promot. 1996;11:87–98. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-11.2.87.
    1. Armitage CJ, Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol. 2001;40:471–499. doi: 10.1348/014466601164939.
    1. Heesen C, Solari A, Giordano A, Kasper J, Köpke S. Decisions on multiple sclerosis immunotherapy: new treatment complexities urge patient engagement. J Neurol Sci. 2011;306:192–197. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2010.09.012.
    1. Köpke S, Kasper J, Mühlhauser I, Nübling M, Heesen C. Patient education program to enhance decision autonomy in multiple sclerosis relapse management: a randomised-controlled trial. Mult Scler. 2009;15:96–104. doi: 10.1177/1352458508095921.
    1. Kasper J, Köpke S, Mühlhauser I, Nübling M, Heesen C. Informed shared decision making about immunotherapy for patients with multiple sclerosis (ISDIMS): a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Neurol. 2008;15:1345–1352. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2008.02313.x.
    1. Compston A, Coles A. Multiple Sclerosis. Lancet. 2008;372:1502–1517. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61620-7.
    1. O'Connor AM, Légaré F, Stacey D. Risk communication in practice: the contribution of decision aids. Br Med J. 2003;327:736–740. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.736.
    1. Heesen C, Kasper J, Segal J, Köpke S, Mühlhauser I. Decisional role preferences, risk knowledge and information interests in patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2004;10:643–650. doi: 10.1191/1352458504ms1112oa.
    1. Hamann J, Neuner B, Kasper J. Participation preferences of patients with acute and chronic conditions. Health Expect. 2007;10:358–363. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00458.x.
    1. Ajzen I. Constructing a TPB Questionnaire. Conceptual and Methodological Considerations. 2006. Retrieved from . (Last access August 2011)
    1. Fischer K. Patient education programme for early multiple sclerosis (MS) 2009. Available at: .
    1. Barratt A. Evidence based medicine and shared decision making: the challenge of getting both evidence and preferences into health care. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:407–412. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.054.
    1. Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14:26–33. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155.
    1. Michie S, Dormandy E, French DP, Marteau TM. Using the theory of planned behaviour to predict screening uptake in two contexts. Psychol Health. 2004;19:705–718. doi: 10.1080/08870440410001704930.
    1. Bekker HL. The loss of reason in patient decision aid research: do checklists damage the quality of informed choice interventions? Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78:357–364. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.01.002.
    1. Durand MA, Stiel M, Boivin J, Elwyn G. Where is the theory? Evaluating thetheoretical frameworks described in decision support technologies. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;71:125–135. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.12.004.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren