Perception of risk and shared decision making process in multiple sclerosis

References

• Nylander A, Hafler DA. Multiple sclerosis. J Clin Invest. 2012 Apr;122(4):1180–1188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trojano M, Paolicelli D, Tortorella C, et al. Natural history of multiple sclerosis: have available therapies impacted long-term prognosis? Neurol Clin. 2011 May;29(2):309–321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cocco E, Sardu C, Spinicci G, et al. Influence of treatments in multiple sclerosis disability: a cohort study. Mult Scler. 2015 Apr;21(4):433–441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duddy M, Haghikia A, Cocco E, et al. Managing MS in a changing treatment landscape. J Neurol. 2011 May;258(5):728–739.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews PM. Decade in review-multiple sclerosis: new drugs and personalized medicine for multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Neurol. 2015 Nov;11(11):614–616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadley SA, Barnett MH, Boggild M, et al. A new era in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Med J Aust. 2015 Aug 3;203(3):139–141, 141e.1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cree BAC, Hartung HP. Steering through complexity: management approaches in multiple sclerosis. Curr Opin Neurol. 2016 Jun;29(3):263–271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heesen C, Solari A, Giordano A, et al. Decisions on multiple sclerosis immunotherapy: new treatment complexities urge patient engagement. J Neurol Sci. 2011 Jul 15;306(1–2):192–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heesen C, Köpke S, Solari A, et al. Patient autonomy in multiple sclerosis–possible goals and assessment strategies. J Neurol Sci. 2013 Aug 15;331(1–2):2–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palace J. Partnership and consent in MS treatment choice. J Neurol Sci. 2013 Dec 15;335(1–2):5–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bury M. The sociology of chronic illness: a review of research and prospects. Sociol Health Illn. 1991;13:451–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kachuck NJ. When neurologist and patient disagree on reasonable risk: new challenges in prescribing for patients with multiple sclerosis. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2011;7:197–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res. 1971;7:118.
   Google Scholar
• Hauser SL, Johnston SC. Balancing risk and reward: the question of natalizumab. Ann Neurol. 2009 Sep;66(3):A7–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovic P, Monahan J, Mac Gregor DG. Violence risk assessment and risk communication: the effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. . Law Hum Behav. 2000;24:271–296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovic P, Funucane M, Peters E, et al. The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneaman D, editors. Heuristic and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002. p. 397–420.
   Google Scholar
• Gurm HS, Litaker DG. Framing procedural risk to patients: is 99% safe the same as a risk of 1 in 100? Acad Med. 2000;75:840–842.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981 Jan 30;211(4481):453–458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC Jr, et al. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1259–1262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovic P, Fishhhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Facts versus fears: understanding perceived risk. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, editors. Judgment under uncertainly: heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1982. p. 463–489.
   Google Scholar
• Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med. 1999 Sep;49(5):651–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pietrolongo E, Giordano A, Kleinefeld M, et al. Decision-making in multiple sclerosis consultations in Italy: third observer and patient assessments. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e60721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson W, Kao A, Kuby A, et al. Not all patients want to participate in decision making. A national study of public preferences. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Jun;20(6):531–535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melbourne E, Roberts S, Durand MA, et al. Dyadic OPTION: Measuring perceptions of shared decision-making in practice. Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Apr;83(1):55–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamann J, Neuner B, Kasper J, et al. Participation preferences of patients with acute and chronic conditions. Health Expect. 2007 Dec;10(4):358–363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29(3):21–43. Fall
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Giordano A, Mattarozzi K, Pucci E, et al. Participation in medical decision-making: attitudes of Italians with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 2008 Dec 15;275(1–2):86–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heesen C, Kasper J, Segal J, et al. Decisional role preferences, risk knowledge and information interests in patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2004 Dec;10(6):643–650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Amico E, Leone C, Patti F. Disability may influence patient willingness to participate in decision making on first-line therapy in multiple sclerosis. Funct Neurol. 2016 Jan–Mar;31(1):21–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solari A, Giordano A, Kasper J, et al. Role preferences of people with multiple sclerosis: image-revised, computerized self-administered version of the control preference scale. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 18;8(6):e66127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Pückler A. A patient’s perspective of partnership in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: MS regimes–an orchestrated approach. J Neurol Sci. 2013 Dec 15;335(1–2):1–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gafson AR, Giovannoni G. CCSVI-A. A call to clinicians and scientists to vocalize in an Internet age. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2014 Mar;3(2):143–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahey T, Griffiths S, Peters TJ. Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. Bmj. 1995 Oct 21;311(7012):1056–1059, discussion 1059–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabár L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammografy. Lancet. 1985;1:829–832.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J E H, Naylor CD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients’ acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making. 1995;15:152–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. Bmj. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):741–744.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks. Bmj. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):745–748.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulter A. Evidence based patient information is important, so there needs to be a national strategy to ensure it. Bmj. 1998 Jul 25;317(7153):225–226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunge M, Mühlhauser I, Steckelberg A. What constitutes evidence-based patient information? Overview of discussed criteria. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Mar;78(3):316–328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köpke S, Kasper J, Flachenecker P, et al. Patient education programme on immunotherapy in multiple sclerosis (PEPIMS): a controlled rater-blinded study. Clin Rehabil. 2016 Apr;12.
   Google Scholar
• Köpke S, Kern S, Ziemssen T, et al. Evidence-based patient information programme in early multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014 Apr;85(4):411–418.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köpke S, Kasper J, Mühlhauser I, et al. Patient education program to enhance decision autonomy in multiple sclerosis relapse management: a randomized-controlled trial. Mult Scler. 2009 Jan;15(1):96–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasper J, Köpke S, Mühlhauser I, et al. Informed shared decision making about immunotherapy for patients with multiple sclerosis (ISDIMS): a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Neurol. 2008 Dec;15(12):1345–1352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colombo C, Filippini G, Synnot A, et al. Development and assessment of a website presenting evidence-based information for people with multiple sclerosis: the IN-DEEP project. BMC Neurol. 2016 Mar;2(16):30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsivgoulis G, Faissner S, Voumvourakis K, et al. “Liberation treatment” for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency in multiple sclerosis: the truth will set you free. Brain Behav. 2015 Jan;5(1):3–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sørensen PS. Balancing the benefits and risks of disease-modifying therapy in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 2011 Dec;311(Suppl 1):S29–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clanet MC, Wolinsky JS, Ashton RJ, et al. Risk evaluation and monitoring in multiple sclerosis therapeutics. Mult Scler. 2014 Sep;20(10):1306–1311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuigan C, Craner M, Guadagno J, et al. Stratification and monitoring of natalizumab-associated progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy risk: recommendations from an expert group. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016 Feb;87(2):117–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta S, Weinstock-Guttman B. Natalizumab for multiple sclerosis: appraising risk versus benefit, a seemingly demanding tango. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2014 Jan;14(1):115–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotte S, Von Ahsen N, Kruse N, et al. ABC-transporter gene-polymorphisms are potential pharmacogenetic markers for mitoxantrone response in multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2009;132(9):2517–2530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasan SK, Buttari F, Ottone T, et al. Risk of acute promyelocytic leukemia in multiple sclerosis: coding variants of DNA repair genes. Neurology. 2011;76(12):1059–1065.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones JL, Phuah CL, Cox AL, et al. IL-21 drives secondary autoimmunity in patients with multiple sclerosis, following therapeutic lymphocyte depletion with alemtuzumab(Campath-1H). J Clin Invest. 2009 Jul;119(7):2052–2061.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azzopardi L, Thompson SA, Harding KE, et al. Predicting autoimmunity after alemtuzumab treatment of multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014 Jul;85(7):795–798.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boeije HR, Janssens AC. ‘It might happen or it might not’: how patients with multiple sclerosis explain their perception of prognostic risk. Soc Sci Med. 2004 Aug;59(4):861–868.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssens AC, de Boer JB, van Doorn PA, et al. Expectations of wheelchair-dependency in recently diagnosed patients with multiple sclerosis and their partners. Eur J Neurol. 2003 May;10(3):287–293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssens AC, van Doorn PA, de Boer JB, et al. Perception of prognostic risk in patients with multiple sclerosis: the relationship with anxiety, depression, and disease-related distress. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Feb;57(2):180–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tur C, Tintoré M, Vidal-Jordana A, et al. Natalizumab discontinuation after PML risk stratification: outcome from a shared and informed decision. Mult Scler. 2012 Aug;18(8):1193–1196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tur C, Tintoré M, Vidal-Jordana Á, et al. Risk acceptance in multiple sclerosis patients on natalizumab treatment. PLoS One. 2013 Dec 10;8(12):e82796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson FR, Van Houtven G, Ozdemir S, et al. Multiple sclerosis patients’ benefit-risk preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. J Neurol. 2009 Apr;256(4):554–562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heesen C, Kleiter I, Nguyen F, et al. Risk perception in natalizumab-treated multiple sclerosis patients and their neurologists. Mult Scler. 2010 Dec;16(12):1507–1512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmann A, Stellmann JP, Kasper J, et al. Long-term treatment risks in multiple sclerosis: risk knowledge and risk perception in a large cohort of mitoxantrone-treated patients. Mult Scler. 2013 Jun;19(7):920–925.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lugaresi A, Di Ioia M, Travaglini D, et al. Risk-benefit considerations in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2013;9:893–914.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng P, Murray S, Hayes SM. Clinical decision-making in multiple sclerosis: challenges reported internationally with emerging treatment complexity. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2015 Jul;4(4):320–328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• English C, Jj A. New FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther. 2015 Apr 1;37(4):691–715.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Axisa PP, Hafler DA. Multiple sclerosis: genetics, biomarkers, treatments. Curr Opin Neurol. 2016 Jun;29(3):345–353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uitdehaag BM, Barkhof F, Coyle PK, et al. The changing face of multiple sclerosis clinical trial populations. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011 Aug;27(8):1529–1537.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sormani MP. The Will Rogers phenomenon: the effect of different diagnostic criteria. J Neurol Sci. 2009;287(1):S46–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haynes RB, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH. Physicians’ and patients’ choices in evidence based practice. Bmj. 2002 Jun 8;324(7350):1350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nijsten T, Spuls PI, Naldi L, et al. The misperception that clinical trial data reflect long-term drug safety: lessons learned from Efalizumab’s withdrawal. Arch Dermatol. 2009 Sep;145(9):1037–1039.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rudick R, Polman C, Clifford D, et al. Natalizumab: bench to bedside and beyond. JAMA Neurol. 2013 Feb;70(2):172–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cocco E, Marrosu MG. The current role of mitoxantrone in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Expert Rev Neurother. 2014 Jun;14(6):607–616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ledda A, Caocci G, Spinicci G, et al. Two new cases of acute promyelocytic leukemia following mitoxantrone treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis. Leukemia. 2006 Dec;20(12):2217–2218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cocco E, Sardu C, Gallo P, et al. Frequency and risk factors of mitoxantrone-induced amenorrhea in multiple sclerosis: the FEMIMS study. Mult Scler. 2008 Nov;14(9):1225–1233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stafinski T, Menon D, Nardelli A, et al. Incorporating patient preferences into clinical trial design: results of the opinions of patients on treatment implications of new studies (OPTIONS) project. Am Heart J. 2015 Jan;169(1):122–31.e22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Refusal of the marketing authorization for Movectro (cladribine): outcome of re-examination. [ cited 2011 Jan 20]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Application_withdrawal_assessment_report/2011/03/WC500104393.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ali S, Paracha N, Cook S, et al. Reduction in healthcare and societal resource utilization associated with cladribine tablets in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: analysis of economic data from the CLARITY Study. Clin Drug Investig. 2012 Jan 1;32(1):15–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dohan D, Garrett SB, Rendle KA, et al. The importance of integrating narrative into health care decision making. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Apr 1;35(4):720–725.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gadow S. Clinics subjectivity. Advocacy with silent patient. Nurs Clin North Am. 1989;22(2):79–101.
   Google Scholar
• Quaranta I. Culture, health and communication in the doctor/patients relationship. In: Malatesta M, editor. Theory and practice in doctors and patients: history, representation, communication from antiquity. Berkeley (CA): University of California medical humanities press; 2015. p. 137–158.
   Google Scholar
• Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):71–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh T. Narrative based medicine: narrative based medicine in an evidence based world. BMJ. 1999 Jan 30;318(7179):323–325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar