Discordance of reported multiple sclerosis clinical course amongst patients and providers

IF 2.9 4区医学 Q3 IMMUNOLOGY

Journal of neuroimmunology Pub Date : 2024-08-29 DOI:10.1016/j.jneuroim.2024.578443

Albert Aboseif , Moein Amin , Gabrielle Macaron , Daniel Ontaneda

{"title":"Discordance of reported multiple sclerosis clinical course amongst patients and providers","authors":"Albert Aboseif , Moein Amin , Gabrielle Macaron , Daniel Ontaneda","doi":"10.1016/j.jneuroim.2024.578443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Effective communication between providers and people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) is essential.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To determine the level of concordance between provider- and pwMS-reported disease course.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Patient encounters from December 2015 through April 2020 were retrospectively reviewed for MS disease course self-reported by the patient and separately documented by the provider at each visit. The proportion of agreement was compared across disease course Cohen's kappa, and subsequently stratified by sex, race, and level education.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Across 1335 encounters, the proportion of disease course agreement varied. Compared with RRMS, there was statistically significant difference across all other disease courses. Overall concordance between providers and pwMS was 64 % with a Cohen's kappa of 0.312. Concordance was higher amongst female patients, black patients, and patients with a higher level of education (>14 years).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Overall agreement on MS disease course amongst patients and providers was suboptimal. A concerted effort to understand these discrepancies is needed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16671,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neuroimmunology","volume":"395 ","pages":"Article 578443"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neuroimmunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165572824001620","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Effective communication between providers and people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) is essential.

Objectives

To determine the level of concordance between provider- and pwMS-reported disease course.

Methods

Patient encounters from December 2015 through April 2020 were retrospectively reviewed for MS disease course self-reported by the patient and separately documented by the provider at each visit. The proportion of agreement was compared across disease course Cohen's kappa, and subsequently stratified by sex, race, and level education.

Results

Across 1335 encounters, the proportion of disease course agreement varied. Compared with RRMS, there was statistically significant difference across all other disease courses. Overall concordance between providers and pwMS was 64 % with a Cohen's kappa of 0.312. Concordance was higher amongst female patients, black patients, and patients with a higher level of education (>14 years).

Conclusion

Overall agreement on MS disease course amongst patients and providers was suboptimal. A concerted effort to understand these discrepancies is needed.

查看原文本刊更多论文

患者和医疗服务提供者报告的多发性硬化症临床病程不一致

背景医疗服务提供者与多发性硬化症患者（pwMS）之间的有效沟通至关重要。目的确定医疗服务提供者与多发性硬化症患者报告的病程之间的一致程度。方法回顾性审查了患者自述的多发性硬化症病程以及医疗服务提供者在每次就诊时分别记录的病程。比较了不同病程的一致性比例，并根据性别、种族和受教育程度进行了分层。结果在 1335 次就诊中，病程一致性比例各不相同。与 RRMS 相比，所有其他疾病病程之间的差异均具有统计学意义。医疗服务提供者与患者之间的总体一致性为 64%，Cohen's kappa 为 0.312。女性患者、黑人患者和受教育程度较高（14 年）的患者之间的一致性更高。需要共同努力了解这些差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of neuroimmunology 医学-免疫学

CiteScore

6.10

自引率

3.00%

发文量

154

审稿时长

37 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Neuroimmunology affords a forum for the publication of works applying immunologic methodology to the furtherance of the neurological sciences. Studies on all branches of the neurosciences, particularly fundamental and applied neurobiology, neurology, neuropathology, neurochemistry, neurovirology, neuroendocrinology, neuromuscular research, neuropharmacology and psychology, which involve either immunologic methodology (e.g. immunocytochemistry) or fundamental immunology (e.g. antibody and lymphocyte assays), are considered for publication.