Risk Knowledge in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (RIKNO 1.0)--Development of an Outcome Instrument for Educational Interventions

C Heesen, J Kasper, K Fischer, S Köpke, A Rahn, I Backhus, J Poettgen, L Vahter, J Drulovic, A Van Nunen, Y Beckmann, K Liethmann, A Giordano, G Fulcher, A Solari, AutoMS-group, C Heesen, A Solari, C Heesen, A Solari, J Drulovic, A Giordano, J Kasper, S Köpke, A van Nunen, L Degner, W Gaissmaier, C Goss, G Fulcher, W Longley, A Solari, A Giordano, G Ferrari, P Confalonieri, C Antozzi, A Lugaresi, E Pietrolongo, D Farina, M Pugliatti, V Piscedda, M Trojano, C Tortorella, D Paolicelli, C Heesen, J Kasper, I Backhus, J Poettgen, K Fischer, K Liethmann, S Köpke, A van Nunen, M Pirard, A Symons, F Paul, L Vahter, K Kannel, M Clanet, F Viala, J Drulovic, T Pekmezovic, Y Beckmann, C Heesen, J Kasper, K Fischer, S Köpke, A Rahn, I Backhus, J Poettgen, L Vahter, J Drulovic, A Van Nunen, Y Beckmann, K Liethmann, A Giordano, G Fulcher, A Solari, AutoMS-group, C Heesen, A Solari, C Heesen, A Solari, J Drulovic, A Giordano, J Kasper, S Köpke, A van Nunen, L Degner, W Gaissmaier, C Goss, G Fulcher, W Longley, A Solari, A Giordano, G Ferrari, P Confalonieri, C Antozzi, A Lugaresi, E Pietrolongo, D Farina, M Pugliatti, V Piscedda, M Trojano, C Tortorella, D Paolicelli, C Heesen, J Kasper, I Backhus, J Poettgen, K Fischer, K Liethmann, S Köpke, A van Nunen, M Pirard, A Symons, F Paul, L Vahter, K Kannel, M Clanet, F Viala, J Drulovic, T Pekmezovic, Y Beckmann

Abstract

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.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. GMC Council. Consent guidance: patients and doctors making decisions together. 2008. Accessed: .
    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(3):407–12. 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.054
    1. Gigerenzer G, Gray JAM. Launching the century oft the patient In: Gigerenzer G, Gray JAM, editors. Better doctors, better patients, better decisions: envisioning healthcare 2020. Cambridge: MIT Press, Stüngmann Forum Report; 2013. Vol. 6 pp.3–38.
    1. Edwards A, Elwyn G. Evidence based patient choice In: Edwards A, Elwyn G, editors. Evidence-based patient choice: inevitable or impossible? Oxford: University Press; 2001. pp.3–18.
    1. Karussis D. Immunotherapy of multiple sclerosis: the state of the art. BioDrugs 2013; 27(2): 113–48. 10.1007/s40259-013-0011-z
    1. Ontaneda D, Cohen JA. The benefits and risks of alemtuzumab in multiple sclerosis. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2013; 9(3):189–91. 10.1586/eci.13.1
    1. Coles AJ, Fox E, Vladic A, Gazda SK, Brinar V, Selmaj KW, et al. Alemtuzumab more effective than interferon ß-1a at 5-year follow-up of CAMMS223 clinical trial. Neurology 2012; 78(14): 1069–78. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31824e8ee7
    1. Hofmann A, Stellmann JP, Kasper J, Ufer F, Elias WG, Pauly I et al. Long-term treatment risks in multiple sclerosis: risk knowledge and risk perception in a large cohort of mitoxantrone-treated patients. Mult Scler. 2013; 19(7): 920–5. 10.1177/1352458512461967
    1. Giordano A, Uccelli MM, Pucci E, Martinelli V, Borreani C, Lugaresi A, et al. The Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge Questionnaire: a self-administered instrument for recently diagnosed patients. Mult Scler, 2010; 16(1): 100–11. 10.1177/1352458509352865
    1. Solari A, Martinelli V, Trojano M, Lugaresi A, Granella F, Giordano A, et al. An information aid for newly diagnosed multiple sclerosis patients improves disease knowledge and satisfaction with care. Mult Scler, 2010; 16(11): 1393–405. 10.1177/1352458510380417
    1. Giordano A, Lugaresi A, Confalonieri P, Granella F, Radice D, Trojano M et al. Implementation of the “Sapere Migliora” information aid for newly diagnosed people with multiple sclerosis in routine clinical practice: A late-phase trial. Mult Scler J, 2014; 20: 1234–1243.
    1. Heesen C, Kasper J, Segal J, Köpke S, Mühlhauser I. Decisional role preferences, knowledge and information interests in patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler, 2004; 10: 643–650.
    1. Bunge M, Mühlhauser I, Steckelberg A. What constitutes evidence-based patient information? Overview of discussed criteria. Patient Educ Counsm 2010; 78(3): 316–28.
    1. Kasper J, Köpke S, Mühlhauser I, Heesen C. Evidence-based patient information about treatment of multiple sclerosis–-a phase one study on comprehension and emotional responses. Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 62(1): 56–63.
    1. Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ 2003; 327: 741–4.
    1. Köpke S, Kern S, Ziemssen T, Berghoff M, Kleiter I, Marziniak M. Evidence-based patient information program in early multiple sclerosis—a randomized controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psych. 2014; 85(4): 411–8.
    1. Sharrack B, Hughes RAC. The Guy´s Neurological Disability Scale (GNDS): a new disability measure for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 1999; 5: 223–233.
    1. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983; 67: 361–370.
    1. Herrmann-Lingen C, Buss U, Snaith RP. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—German Version (HADS-D). 3 ed. Bern: Hans-Huber, 2001.
    1. Lohaus A, Schmitt GM. Kontrollüberzeugungen zu Krankheit und Gesundheit (KKG): Bericht über die Entwicklung eines Testverfahrens. Diagnostica 1989; 35: 59–72.
    1. Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997; 29: 21–43.
    1. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 11: 1444–52.
    1. Heesen C, Schäffler N, Kasper J, Mühlhauser I, Köpke S. Suspected multiple sclerosis–what to do? Evaluation of a patient information leaflet. Mult Scler. 2009; 15(9): 1103–12. 10.1177/1352458509106508
    1. Bodemer N, Meder B, Gigerenzer G (2014) Communicating Relative Risk Changes with Baseline Risk: Presentation Format and Numeracy Matter. Med Decis Making. 2014; 34(5): 615–626.
    1. Heesen C, Kleiter I, Nguyen F, Schäffler N, Kasper J, Köpke S et al. Risk perception in natalizumab-treated multiple sclerosis patients and their neurologists. Mult Scler. 2010; 16(12):1507–12. 10.1177/1352458510379819
    1. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier M, Kurz-Milke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Assoc Psychol Sci. 2008, 8: 53–96.
    1. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P. Shared decision-making in primary care: the neglected second half of the consultation. British Journal of General Practice 1999; 149(443): 477–482.
    1. Köpke S, Kasper J, Nübling M, Mühlhauser I, Heesen C. Patient education programme to enhance decision autonomy in multiple sclerosis relapse management: randomised controlled trial. Mult Scler. 2009; 15(1): 96–104. 10.1177/1352458508095921
    1. Erikli N. Verlaufsformen und Therapie der MS in Hamburg, eine zentrumsbasierte Erhebung Promotion, University of Hamburg, 2011.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する