What matters to patients with multiple sclerosis? Identifying patient-relevant attributes using a ranking exercise with open-ended answers from an online survey in Italy.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Karin Schölin Bywall, Ulrik Kihlbom, Jennifer Viberg Johansson, Guido Pasquini, Filippo Gerli, Claudia Niccolai, Sara Della Bella, Emilio Portaccio, Matteo Betti, Maria Pia Amato, Sylvia Martin
{"title":"What matters to patients with multiple sclerosis? Identifying patient-relevant attributes using a ranking exercise with open-ended answers from an online survey in Italy.","authors":"Karin Schölin Bywall, Ulrik Kihlbom, Jennifer Viberg Johansson, Guido Pasquini, Filippo Gerli, Claudia Niccolai, Sara Della Bella, Emilio Portaccio, Matteo Betti, Maria Pia Amato, Sylvia Martin","doi":"10.1136/bmjopen-2024-095552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to explore what intervention specificities or attributes newly diagnosed individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) find important and to explore possible reasons behind their evaluations.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A stepwise approach began with a systematic literature review to identify significant attributes. Patients with MS then assessed these attributes through an online survey, which included a ranking exercise and open-ended questions. Finally, the results were evaluated by the clinical team to select the most relevant factors for personalised care.</p><p><strong>Setting and participants: </strong>From June 2023 to December 2023, all consecutive patients referred to the MS Center of Careggi University Hospital were screened for inclusion. Following recruitment, cognitive and physical assessments were administered at the Don Gnocchi Centre. All participants were interviewed by an experienced neuropsychologist.</p><p><strong>Procedures: </strong>Participants were enrolled in the RELIABLE clinical trial, which included a ranking exercise and open-ended question. In the ranking exercise, patients prioritised levels of treatment attributes: treatment effects, methods of intervention, type of monitoring, monitoring, mode and mental support. The open-ended questions addressed the reasons behind the level rankings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants' rankings revealed the most important levels of each attribute. The highest-ranked method of intervention was disease-modifying treatment, which received 164 points. For mental support, individual psychotherapy was deemed most important with 149 points. Preservation of cognitive function, a key treatment effect, received 144 points. Clinical check-ups were the top type of monitoring with 129 points. Lastly, the hybrid mode of monitoring (half remote/half in-person) was ranked with 77 points. Open-ended responses provided insights into the reasons behind these preferences, emphasising the importance of maintaining mobility, cognitive function and emotional well-being. The clinical team evaluated these findings, confirming that the selected attributes were both clinically relevant and aligned with patient priorities. This evaluation process ensured that the treatment specificities chosen for individualised care were comprehensive and reflective of patient needs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>By identifying and prioritising key treatment attributes, this research highlights the multifaceted nature of MS management and emphasises the importance of aligning treatment options with patient preferences. Addressing these factors through further quantitative preference assessments is essential for preventative MS care, improving patient outcomes and promoting a more patient-centred approach to treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":9158,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open","volume":"15 5","pages":"e095552"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12104910/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-095552","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to explore what intervention specificities or attributes newly diagnosed individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) find important and to explore possible reasons behind their evaluations.

Design: A stepwise approach began with a systematic literature review to identify significant attributes. Patients with MS then assessed these attributes through an online survey, which included a ranking exercise and open-ended questions. Finally, the results were evaluated by the clinical team to select the most relevant factors for personalised care.

Setting and participants: From June 2023 to December 2023, all consecutive patients referred to the MS Center of Careggi University Hospital were screened for inclusion. Following recruitment, cognitive and physical assessments were administered at the Don Gnocchi Centre. All participants were interviewed by an experienced neuropsychologist.

Procedures: Participants were enrolled in the RELIABLE clinical trial, which included a ranking exercise and open-ended question. In the ranking exercise, patients prioritised levels of treatment attributes: treatment effects, methods of intervention, type of monitoring, monitoring, mode and mental support. The open-ended questions addressed the reasons behind the level rankings.

Results: Participants' rankings revealed the most important levels of each attribute. The highest-ranked method of intervention was disease-modifying treatment, which received 164 points. For mental support, individual psychotherapy was deemed most important with 149 points. Preservation of cognitive function, a key treatment effect, received 144 points. Clinical check-ups were the top type of monitoring with 129 points. Lastly, the hybrid mode of monitoring (half remote/half in-person) was ranked with 77 points. Open-ended responses provided insights into the reasons behind these preferences, emphasising the importance of maintaining mobility, cognitive function and emotional well-being. The clinical team evaluated these findings, confirming that the selected attributes were both clinically relevant and aligned with patient priorities. This evaluation process ensured that the treatment specificities chosen for individualised care were comprehensive and reflective of patient needs.

Conclusions: By identifying and prioritising key treatment attributes, this research highlights the multifaceted nature of MS management and emphasises the importance of aligning treatment options with patient preferences. Addressing these factors through further quantitative preference assessments is essential for preventative MS care, improving patient outcomes and promoting a more patient-centred approach to treatment.

对多发性硬化症患者来说,什么最重要?通过意大利一项在线调查的开放式答案进行排名,确定与患者相关的属性。
目的:本研究旨在探讨新诊断的多发性硬化症(MS)患者认为重要的干预特异性或属性,并探讨其评估背后的可能原因。设计:采用循序渐进的方法,从系统的文献回顾开始,以确定重要的属性。然后,MS患者通过一项在线调查评估这些属性,其中包括排名练习和开放式问题。最后,临床团队对结果进行评估,以选择最相关的个性化护理因素。环境和参与者:从2023年6月至2023年12月,所有连续转诊至Careggi大学医院多发性硬化症中心的患者均被筛选纳入研究。招募后,在Don Gnocchi中心进行了认知和身体评估。所有参与者都接受了一位经验丰富的神经心理学家的采访。程序:参与者被纳入可靠的临床试验,其中包括一个排名练习和开放式问题。在排序练习中,患者对治疗属性的等级进行排序:治疗效果、干预方式、监测类型、监测方式、心理支持。开放式问题探讨了排名背后的原因。结果:参与者的排名揭示了每个属性的最重要级别。排名最高的干预方法是疾病改善治疗,获得164分。在心理支持方面,个人心理治疗被认为是最重要的,得到149分。保持认知功能是治疗的关键效果,获得144分。临床检查以129分位居监测类型之首。最后,混合监控模式(一半远程/一半现场)以77分排名。开放式回答提供了对这些偏好背后原因的见解,强调了保持流动性、认知功能和情感健康的重要性。临床团队对这些发现进行了评估,确认所选择的属性既与临床相关,又与患者的优先级一致。这一评估过程确保了为个性化护理选择的治疗特异性是全面的,并反映了患者的需求。结论:通过识别和优先处理关键治疗属性,本研究强调了多发性硬化症管理的多面性,并强调了根据患者偏好调整治疗方案的重要性。通过进一步的定量偏好评估来解决这些因素对于预防性MS护理、改善患者预后和促进更以患者为中心的治疗方法至关重要。
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
BMJ Open
BMJ Open MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
4510
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open is an online, open access journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
×
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