A Novel Tool to Improve Shared Decision Making and Adherence in Multiple Sclerosis: Development and Preliminary Testing

Nananda Col, Enrique Alvarez, Vicky Springmann, Carolina Ionete, Idanis Berrios Morales, Andrew Solomon, Christen Kutz, Carolyn Griffin, Brenda Tierman, Terrie Livingston, Michelle Patel, Danny van Leeuwen, Long Ngo, Lori Pbert, Nananda Col, Enrique Alvarez, Vicky Springmann, Carolina Ionete, Idanis Berrios Morales, Andrew Solomon, Christen Kutz, Carolyn Griffin, Brenda Tierman, Terrie Livingston, Michelle Patel, Danny van Leeuwen, Long Ngo, Lori Pbert

Abstract

Background. Most people with multiple sclerosis (MS) want to be involved in medical decision making about disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but new approaches are needed to overcome barriers to participation. Objectives. We sought to develop a shared decision-making (SDM) tool for MS DMTs, evaluate patient and provider responses to the tool, and address challenges encountered during development to guide a future trial. Methods. We created a patient-centered design process informed by image theory to develop the MS-SUPPORT SDM tool. Development included semistructured interviews and alpha and beta testing with MS patients and providers. Beta testing assessed dissemination and clinical integration strategies, decision-making processes, communication, and adherence. Patients evaluated the tool before and after a clinic visit. Results. MS-SUPPORT combines self-assessment with tailored feedback to help patients identify their treatment goals and preferences, correct misperceptions, frame decisions, and promote adherence. MS-SUPPORT generates a personal summary of their responses that patients can share with their provider to facilitate communication. Alpha testing (14 patients) identified areas needing improvement, resulting in reorganization and shortening of the tool. MS-SUPPORT was highly rated in beta testing (15 patients, 4 providers) on patient-provider communication, patient preparation, adherence, and other endpoints. Dissemination through both patient and provider networks appeared feasible. All patient testers wanted to share the summary report with their provider, but only 60% did. Limitations. Small sample size, no comparison group. Conclusions. The development process resulted in a patient-centered SDM tool for MS that may facilitate patient involvement in decision making, help providers understand their patients' preferences, and improve adherence, though further testing is needed. Beta testing in real-world conditions was critical to prepare the tool for future testing and inform the design of future studies.

Keywords: adherence; chronic disease; communication; image theory; multiple sclerosis; patient preferences; shared decision making; values clarification.

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Nananda Col has received consulting fees and research contracts from various entities through her contract research organization, Five Islands Consulting, LLC, also known as Shared Decision Making Resources.

© The Author(s) 2019.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Content diagram of MS-SUPPORT. *Summary individualized based on patient responses. Summary and content e-mailed to patient.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Sample overall summary generated by MS-SUPPORT.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Screen shots from MS-SUPPORT. Examples of presenting decisions in MS-SUPPORT.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparing DMT options.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Patient evaluation of MS-SUPPORT before provider appointment (n = 15).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Each line represents one patient participant’s stage of decision making before (blue bubbles) and after (green bubbles) viewing MS-SUPPORT.

References

    1. Matthew WB, Compson A, Allen IV, Martyn CN. McAlpine’s Multiple Sclerosis. 2nd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1991.
    1. Goodin DS, Frohman EM, Garmany GP, Jr, et al. Disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the MS Council for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Neurology. 2002;58(2):169–78.
    1. Rae-Grant A, Day GS, Marrie RA, et al. Practice guideline recommendations summary: disease-modifying therapies for adults with multiple sclerosis: report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2018;90(17):777–88.
    1. Tramacere I, Del Giovane C, Salanti G, D’Amico R, Filippini G. Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(9):CD011381.
    1. Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1):CD001431.
    1. Tugwell P, Knottnerus JA. Can patient decision aids be used to improve not only decisional comfort but also adherence? J Clin Epidemiol. 2016:77:1–3.
    1. Montalbán X, Gold R, Thompson AJ, et al. ECTRIMS/EAN guideline on the pharmacological treatment of people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2018;24(2):96–120.
    1. Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A, Hibbard JH, Mertz CK. Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64(2):169–90.
    1. Carroll S, Embuldeniya G, Pannag J, Lewis K, McGillion M, Stacey D. The challenge of values-elicitation: understanding how patients’ values guide decision-making in the context of implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Can J Cardiol. 2016;32(10):S313.
    1. Col NF, Solomon AJ, Springmann V, et al. Whose preferences matter? A patient-centered approach for eliciting treatment goals. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1):44–55.
    1. Luce MF. Choosing to avoid: coping with negatively emotion-laden consumer decisions. J Consumer Res. 1998;24(4):409–33.
    1. Redelmeier DA, Shafir E. Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. JAMA. 1995;273(4):302–5. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520280048038
    1. Lee CN, Hultman CS, Sepucha K. Do patients and providers agree about the most important facts and goals for breast reconstruction decisions? Ann Plast Surg. 2010;64(5):563–6. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181c01279
    1. Devereaux PJ, Anderson DR, Gardner MJ, et al. Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study. BMJ. 2001;323(7323):1218–22.
    1. Jecker NS. The role of intimate others in medical decision making. Gerontologist. 1990;30(1):65–71.
    1. Hornberger JC, Habraken H, Bloch DA. Minimum data needed on patient preferences for accurate, efficient medical decision making. Med Care. 1995;33(3):297–310.
    1. Witteman HO, Scherer LD, Gavaruzzi T, et al. Design features of explicit values clarification methods: a systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(4):453–71. doi:10.1177/0272989X15626397
    1. Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B. Conjoint analysis application in health—how are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient. 2010;3:249–56.
    1. International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. IPDAS 2005: Criteria for Judging the Quality of Patient Decision Aids. IPDAS Patient Decision Aid Checklist for Users. Available from:
    1. Köpke S, Solaris A, Khan F, Heesen C, Giodano. A. Information provision for people with multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(4):CD008757.
    1. Abhyankar P, Volk RJ, Blumenthal-Barby J, et al. Balancing the presentation of information and options in patient decision aids: an updated review. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2013;13(Suppl. 2):S6. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S6
    1. Braddock CH, 3rd, Fihn SD, Levinson W, Jonsen AR, Pearlman RA. How doctors and patients discuss routine clinical decisions. Informed decision making in the outpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12(6):339–45.
    1. Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, et al.; International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417.
    1. Feldman-Stewart D, O’Brien MA, Clayman A, et al. 2012Updated Chapter B: Providing information about options. Available from:
    1. Beach LR, Mitchell TR. Image theory: principles, goals, and plans in decision making. Acta Psychol. 1987;66(3):201–20.
    1. Beach LR, Potter RE. The pre-choice screening of options. Acta Psychol. 1992;81(2):115–26.
    1. Potter RB, Beach LR. Imperfect information in pre-choice screening of options. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1994;59(2):313–29.
    1. Pieterse AH, de Vries M, Kunneman M, Stiggelbout AM, Feldman-Stewart D. Theory-informed design of values clarification methods: a cognitive psychological perspective on patient health-related decision making. Soc Sci Med. 2013;77:156–63.
    1. Devonshire V, Lapierre Y, Macdonell R, et al.; GAP Study Group. The Global Adherence Project (GAP): a multicenter observational study on adherence to disease-modifying therapies in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol. 2011;18(1):69–77. doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.03110.x
    1. Irwin DE, Cappell KA, Davis BM, Wu Y, Grinspan A, Gandhi SK. Differences in multiple sclerosis relapse rates based on patient adherence, average daily dose, and persistence with disease-modifying therapy: observations based on real-world data. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A764.
    1. Menzin J, Caon C, Nichols C, White LA, Friedman M, Pill MW. Narrative review of the literature on adherence to disease-modifying therapies among patients with multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Pharm. 2013;19(1 Suppl. A):S24–S40.
    1. Tremlett HL, Oger J. Interrupted therapy: stopping and switching of the beta-interferons prescribed for MS. Neurology. 2003;61(4):551–4.
    1. Río J, Porcel J, Téllez N, et al. Factors related with treatment adherence to interferon beta and glatiramer acetate therapy in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2005;11(3):306–9.
    1. Thach AV, Brown CM, Herrera V, et al. Associations between treatment satisfaction, medication beliefs, and adherence to disease-modifying therapies in patients with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2018;20(6):251–9. doi:10.7224/1537-2073.2017-031
    1. Trenaman L, Selva A, Desroches S, et al. A measurement framework for adherence in patient decision aid trials applied in a systematic review subanalysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;77:15–23.
    1. Ben-Zacharia A, Adamson M, Boyd A, et al. Impact of shared decision making on disease-modifying drug adherence in multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2018;20(6):287–97.
    1. de Seze J, Borgel F, Brudan F. Patient perceptions of multiple sclerosis and its treatment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2012;6:263–73.
    1. Col NF, Solomon AJ, Springmann V, et al. Evaluation of a novel preference assessment tool for patients with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2018;20(6):260–7.
    1. Schiffman SS, Reynolds ML, Young FW. Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling: Theory, Methods, and Applications. West Yorkshire: Emerald Group; 1981.
    1. Fitzgerald LF, Hubert LJ. Multidimensional scaling: some possibilities for counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol. 1987;34(4):469–80.
    1. Kruskal JB, Wish M. Multidimensional Scaling. Newbury Park: Sage; 1978.
    1. Aldenderfer MS, Blashfield RK. Cluster Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1984.
    1. Fischhoff B, Brewer NT, Downs JS. Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide. Silver Spring: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration; 2011.
    1. Street RL, Jr, Gordon HS, Ward MM, Krupat E, Kravitz RL. Patient participation in medical consultations: why some patients are more involved than others. Med Care. 2005;43(10):960–9.
    1. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP, Jr, Rogers RL, Chissom BS. Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel. Orlando: Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida; 1975.
    1. Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29(3):21–43.
    1. Vermeire E, Hearnshaw H, Van Royen P, Denekens J. Patient adherence to treatment: three decades of research. A comprehensive review. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2001;26(5):331–42.
    1. Nieuwlaat R, Wilczynski N, Navarro T, et al. Interventions for enhancing medication adherence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(11):CD000011.
    1. Katsarava Z, Ehlken B, Limmroth V, et al.; C.A.R.E. Study Group. Adherence and cost in multiple sclerosis patients treated with IMIFN beta-1a: impact of the CARE patient management program. BMC Neurol. 2015;15:170.
    1. Mohr DC, Goodkin DE, Likosky W, et al. Therapeutic expectations of patients with multiple sclerosis upon initiating interferon beta-1b: relationship to adherence to treatment. Mult Scler. 1996;2(5):222–6.
    1. Kaasinen E. User acceptance of mobile services—value, ease of use, trust and ease of adoption. Available from:
    1. O’Connor AM. User manual—stage of decision making. Available from:
    1. Price RA, Elliott MN, Zaslavsky AM, et al. Examining the role of patient experience surveys in measuring health care quality. Med Care Res Rev. 2014;71(5):522–54.
    1. Kistin C, Silverstein M. Pilot studies: a critical but potentially misused component of interventional research. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1561–2.
    1. Tintoré M, Alexander M, Costello K, et al. The state of multiple sclerosis: current insight into the patient/health care provider relationship, treatment challenges, and satisfaction. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;11:33–45. doi:10.2147/PPA.S115090
    1. Turner AP, Roubinov DS, Atkins DC, Haselkorn JK. Predicting medication adherence in multiple sclerosis using telephone-based home monitoring. Disabil Health J. 2016;9(1):83–9.
    1. Kopke S, Kasper J, Mühlhauser I, Nübling M, Heesen C. Patient education program to enhance decision autonomy in multiple sclerosis relapse management: a randomized-controlled trial. Mult Scler. 2009;15(1):96–104.
    1. Heesen C, Kasper J, Köpke S, Richter T, Segal J, Mühlhauser I. Informed shared decision making in multiple sclerosis—inevitable or impossible? J Neurol Sci. 2007;259(1-2):109–17.
    1. Prunty MC, Sharpe L, Butow P, Fulcher G. The motherhood choice: a decision aid for women with multiple sclerosis. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;71(1):108–15.
    1. Solari A, Martinelli V, Trojano M, et al.; SIMS-Trial Group. An information aid for newly-diagnosed multiple sclerosis patients improves disease knowledge and satisfaction with care. Mult Scler. 2010;16(11):1393–405. doi:10.1177/1352458510380417
    1. Kasper J, Köpke S, Mühlhauser I, Nübling M, Heesen C. Informed shared decision making about immunotherapy for patients with multiple sclerosis (ISDIMS): a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Neurol. 2008;15(12):1345–52.
    1. Multiple Sclerosis Trust. MS Decisions—drug comparison results. Available from:
    1. Col NF. Patient health communication to improve shared decision making. In: Fischhoff B, Brewer NT, Downs JS, eds. Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide. Bethesda: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Risk Communication Advisory Committee and consultants; 2011;173–183.
    1. Makoul G. Perpetuating passivity: reliance and reciprocal determinism in physician-patient interaction. J Health Commun. 1998;3(3):233–59.
    1. Moccia M, Carotenuto A, Massarelli M, Lanzillo R, Morra VB. Can people with multiple sclerosis actually understand what they read in the Internet age? J Clin Neurosci. 2016;25:167–8.
    1. Col NF, Fortin J, Ngo L, O’Connor AM, Goldberg RG. Can computerized decision support help patients make complex treatment decisions? A randomized controlled trial of an individualized menopause decision aid. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):585–98.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅