Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Nov-Dec;20(6):260-267.
doi: 10.7224/1537-2073.2017-021.

Evaluation of a Novel Preference Assessment Tool for Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

Nananda F Col, Andrew J Solomon, Vicky Springmann, Carolina Ionete, Enrique Alvarez, Brenda Tierman, Christen Kutz, Idanis Berrios Morales, Carolyn Griffin, Long H Ngo, David E Jones, Glenn Phillips, Ashli Hopson, Lori Pbert

Evaluation of a Novel Preference Assessment Tool for Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

Nananda F Col et al. Int J MS Care. 2018 Nov-Dec.

Abstract

Background: We developed a preference assessment tool to help assess patient goals, values, and preferences for multiple sclerosis (MS) management. All preference items in the tool were generated by people with MS. The aim of this study was to evaluate this tool in a national sample of people with MS.

Methods: English-speaking patients with MS aged 21 to 75 years with access to the internet were recruited. Participants completed the preference tool online, which included separate modules assessing three core preference areas: treatment goals, preferences for attributes of disease-modifying therapies, and factors influencing a change in treatment. The tool generated a summary of participants' treatment goals and preferences. Immediately after viewing the summary, participants were asked to evaluate the tool. Rankings of preference domains were compared with rankings obtained in another study.

Results: In 135 people with MS who completed the tool and evaluation, the highest ranked goal was brain health (memory, thinking, brain), followed by disability concerns (walking, strength, vision). Rankings were highly similar to those in the referent study. Nearly all participants reported that the tool helped them understand their goals and priorities regarding MS and that the summary appropriately reflected what is important to them. Most participants (87%) wanted to discuss their treatment goals and priorities with their clinician.

Conclusions: This preference assessment tool successfully captured patients' goals, values, and preferences for MS treatment and could potentially be used to help patients communicate their preferences to their clinician.

Keywords: Multiple sclerosis; Patient preference; Shared decision making; Treatment goals; Values clarification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Sample summary page DMT, disease-modifying therapy; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MS, multiple sclerosis.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Graphs showing how the preference assessment tool reflects what matters to patients (A), represents patients' goals and preferences (B), and helps patients understand their goals and priorities (C) regarding multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment DMT, disease-modifying therapy
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Say RE, Thomson R. The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions: challenges for doctors. BMJ. 2003;327:542–545. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Col NF. Patient health communication to improve shared decision making. In: Fischhoff B, Brewer NT, Downs JS, editors. Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User's Guide. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Risk Communication Advisory Committee and consultants; 2011.
    1. Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;60:301–312. - PubMed
    1. Witteman HO, Scherer LD, Gavaruzzi T et al. Design features of explicit values clarification methods: a systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2016;36:453–471. - PubMed
    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;64:169–190. - PubMed