Emotions towards magnetic resonance imaging in people with multiple sclerosis

OBJECTIVES: People with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) often have magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations. While MRI can help guide MS management, it may be a source of anxiety for pwMS. We aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire on the "EMotions and Attitudes towards MRI" (MRI-EMA). MATERIAL & METHODS: The questionnaire was developed, tested in 2 samples of pwMS and validated in a sample of n=457 pwMS using exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). RESULTS: EFA revealed 4 factors underlying the questionnaire: fear of MRI scan, fear of MRI results, feeling of control over the disease and feeling of competence in the patient-physician encounter. CFA confirmed the model fit. Receiving the MRI results, but not undergoing the procedure was associated with anxiety. Seeing MRI results gave participants a feeling of control over the disease. Only 50% felt competent to discuss MRI findings with their physician. Fear of MRI results was especially high and feeling of competence low in participants with a short disease duration and little MRI experience. CONCLUSION: PwMS don't feel competent when discussing the role, MRI plays in their care. Receiving MRI results caused anxiety and provides some pwMS with a - perhaps false - feeling of control over the disease. The MRI-EMA constitutes a new tool for the assessments of pwMS' feelings towards MRI, that can be applied in future research and clinical settings. This article is protected by copyright

Development and evaluation of evidence-based patient information handbooks about multiple sclerosis immunotherapies

Background: Multiple sclerosis treatment options are increasing. Evidence-based patient information (EBPI) are therefore crucial to enable patient involvement in decision making. Based on earlier work on decision support, patient information handbooks on 8 MS immunotherapies were developed, piloted and evaluated with support from the German Clinical Competence Network MS and the German MS Society. Methods: Handbooks were structured according to EBPI concepts. Drafts were commented by patient representatives and neurologists with an MS expertise. Executive boards of the German MS Society and the Competence Network as well as pharmaceutical companies' feedback was included. Handbooks were distributed among MS neurologists by the German MS Society. Evaluation followed applying a mixed methods approach with interviews, focus groups and surveys. One survey addressed persons with MS (pwMS) based on a questionnaire included in each handbook. Neurologists who received printed patient handbooks were invited to give feedback in a second survey. Results: Eight handbooks were developed providing absolute and relative risk information in numbers and figures as well as monitoring needs and drug fact boxes. Despite the high amount of information and the display of low absolute risk reduction rates of treatments, handbooks were overall appreciated by pwMS (n=107) and mostly also by physicians (n=24). For more than 70% of the pwMS the information was new, understandable and supportive for decision making. But patients felt uncomfortable with relative risk information. However, response rates in the evaluation were low, exposing the challenges when implementing EBPI into clinical care. Therefore, conclusions must be considered preliminary. Conclusion: EBPI on immunotherapies for MS seem feasible and are appreciated by patients and treating neurologists but more implementation research is needed

Implementation study of the 2021 German guideline for diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND In May 2021, a new guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis and related disorders was released in Germany. Since the success of a guideline depends on how it integrates into everyday clinical practice, the German Society for Neurology (DGN) has launched a multimethod implementation project. Here we report on the results based on the consultation version of the guideline. METHODS We used qualitative and quantitative data analyses to capture the nature and extent of barriers and facilitating factors to the implementation. We centered on the guideline's chapter A on diagnosis, relapse therapy, and immunotherapy of multiple sclerosis. We performed nine online focus group discussions and a web-based survey and analyzed emails and letters with comments from stakeholders and independent parties that were sent spontaneously or by invitation. RESULTS 94 neurologists answered the survey, and ≥70% agreed with the recommendations of the guideline on each major content topic. Barriers to implementation were detected in group discussions and written input. The most controversial issues of the guideline were "early treatment", "criteria for starting or switching therapy", "stepwise escalation versus early aggressive treatment", "classification of drugs into three categories of efficacy" and the scenarios on "treatment cessation". Some appreciated the highly structured recommendations, but others felt that the guideline restricts the free choice of therapy, or they were afraid of recourse claims. Some considered the guideline as too cautious regarding treatment initiation, possibly delaying necessary therapies. Others appreciated that conflicts of interests of the guideline's authoring group were minimized and thought that the new guideline is clearer, more extensive and practical. CONCLUSION In contrast to the survey, feedback in the focus group discussions and from individuals was diverse and sometimes more critical. Based on the overall feedback rate of about 250 people in relation to the number of 6500 board-certified neurologists in Germany, the overall appreciation of the guideline can only be considered as an indicator and not proof of acceptance. Results of this analysis were incorporated into several adjustments to the final guideline of 2021. Since the guideline is to be updated regularly under the auspices of a "living guideline", active interaction with users will continue to matter and help to improve it