Outcome measurement in functional neurological disorder: A qualitative study on the views of patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Sonja Rutten, Abigail Bradley-Westguard, Timothy R Nicholson, Susannah Pick
{"title":"Outcome measurement in functional neurological disorder: A qualitative study on the views of patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals.","authors":"Sonja Rutten, Abigail Bradley-Westguard, Timothy R Nicholson, Susannah Pick","doi":"10.1007/s00415-025-12912-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In this qualitative study, we aimed to obtain and synthesise the views of patients with functional neurological disorder (FND), their caregivers, and relevant healthcare professionals (HCPs) on outcome measurement in FND.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 FND patients, 18 caregivers and 21 HCPs, sampled purposively in the United Kingdom. Transcripts were analysed through inductive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Whilst reduction or resolution of FND symptoms were frequently mentioned as important treatment goals in all groups, this was reported by a larger proportion of caregivers and HCPs than patients. Patients most frequently hoped for improvements in mental health/well-being. Other important treatment goals were resuming work, and an increase in independence, self-management or self-efficacy. Of the 20 domains deemed relevant for outcome assessment, improvements in FND symptoms, emotional well-being, activities of daily living and quality-of-life, were mentioned most frequently. None of the participants thought that outcome assessment should be purely clinician-rated or objective; all believed that the patient's subjective experience should be central. Nevertheless, participants in all groups acknowledged that clinician-rated or objective OMIs have added value in clinical outcome assessment. The benefits of digital outcome assessment were also mentioned by several participants.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first study to capture the views of key stakeholders on outcome assessment in FND. The findings indicate that outcome measures for FND should be patient-centred, whilst also including HCP opinion. Critical domains for assessment are FND symptoms, mental health, quality-of-life and the ability to perform activities of daily living.</p>","PeriodicalId":16558,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurology","volume":"272 3","pages":"189"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11814038/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-025-12912-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In this qualitative study, we aimed to obtain and synthesise the views of patients with functional neurological disorder (FND), their caregivers, and relevant healthcare professionals (HCPs) on outcome measurement in FND.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 FND patients, 18 caregivers and 21 HCPs, sampled purposively in the United Kingdom. Transcripts were analysed through inductive thematic analysis.

Results: Whilst reduction or resolution of FND symptoms were frequently mentioned as important treatment goals in all groups, this was reported by a larger proportion of caregivers and HCPs than patients. Patients most frequently hoped for improvements in mental health/well-being. Other important treatment goals were resuming work, and an increase in independence, self-management or self-efficacy. Of the 20 domains deemed relevant for outcome assessment, improvements in FND symptoms, emotional well-being, activities of daily living and quality-of-life, were mentioned most frequently. None of the participants thought that outcome assessment should be purely clinician-rated or objective; all believed that the patient's subjective experience should be central. Nevertheless, participants in all groups acknowledged that clinician-rated or objective OMIs have added value in clinical outcome assessment. The benefits of digital outcome assessment were also mentioned by several participants.

Conclusions: This is the first study to capture the views of key stakeholders on outcome assessment in FND. The findings indicate that outcome measures for FND should be patient-centred, whilst also including HCP opinion. Critical domains for assessment are FND symptoms, mental health, quality-of-life and the ability to perform activities of daily living.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Neurology
Journal of Neurology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
558
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurology is an international peer-reviewed journal which provides a source for publishing original communications and reviews on clinical neurology covering the whole field. In addition, Letters to the Editors serve as a forum for clinical cases and the exchange of ideas which highlight important new findings. A section on Neurological progress serves to summarise the major findings in certain fields of neurology. Commentaries on new developments in clinical neuroscience, which may be commissioned or submitted, are published as editorials. Every neurologist interested in the current diagnosis and treatment of neurological disorders needs access to the information contained in this valuable journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信