Innovative Medical Technology and the Treatment Decision-Making Process in Multiple Sclerosis: A Focus Group Study to Examine Patient Perspectives

References

• The European Multiple Sclerosis Platform. MS facts. MS Facts. Available from: http://www.emsp.org/about-ms/. Accessed April 29, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Brownlee WJ, Hardy TA, Fazekas F, Miller DH. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: progress and challenges. Lancet. 2017;389:1336–1346. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30959-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingwersen J, Aktas O, Hartung HP. Advances in and algorithms for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Neurotherapeutics. 2016;13:47–57. doi:10.1007/s13311-015-0412-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fogarty E, Schmitz S, Tubridy N, Walsh C, Barry M. Comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies for patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2016;9:23–30. doi:10.1016/j.msard.2016.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Optogenerapy Consortium. Optogenerapy. Available from: https://optogenerapy.eu/about-optogenerapy/. Accessed April 29, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Michel F, Folcher M. Optogenerapy: when bio-electronic implant enters the modern syringe era. Porto Biomed J. 2017;2:145–149. doi:10.1016/j.pbj.2017.07.001
   Google Scholar
• Tausch AP, Menold N. Methodological Aspects of Focus Groups in Health Research: results of qualitative interviews with Focus Group moderators. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2016;3:2333393616630466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–357. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser LA, Louapre C, Uyl-de Groot CA, Redekop WK. Health-related quality of life of multiple sclerosis patients: a European multi-country study. Arch Public Health. 2021. doi:10.1186/s13690-021-00561-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montalban X, Gold R, Thompson AJ, et al. ECTRIMS/EAN guideline on the pharmacological treatment of people with multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol. 2018;25(2):215–237. doi:10.1111/ene.13536
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Sage; 2007; doi:10.1177/1524839915580941
   Google Scholar
• Etkind SN, Koffman J. Approaches to managing uncertainty in people with life-limiting conditions: role of communication and palliative care. Postgr Med J. 2016;92(1089):412–417. doi:10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers WA, Walker MJ. Fragility, uncertainty, and healthcare. Theor Med Bioeth. 2016;37:71–83. doi:10.1007/s11017-016-9350-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortensen GL, Rasmussen PV. The impact of quality of life on treatment preferences in multiple sclerosis patients. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:1789–1796. doi:10.2147/PPA.S142373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irvine H, Davidson C, Hoy K, Lowe-Strong A. Psychosocial adjustment to multiple sclerosis: exploration of identity redefinition. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:599–606. doi:10.1080/09638280802243286
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keramat Kar M, Whitehead L, Smith CM. Characteristics and correlates of coping with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41:250–264. doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1387295
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buesa-Estellez A, Cano-de-la-cuera R, Ortiz-Guiterrez RM, Palacios-Cena D. The impact of pharmacological treatment on patients with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Health J. 2019;12:615–621. doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.05.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knaster ES, Yorkston KM, Johnson KL, McMullen KA, Ehde DM. Perspectives on self-management in multiple sclerosis: a focus group study. Int J MS Care. 2011;13:146–152. doi:10.7224/1537-2073-13.3.146
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mol A. Proving or improving: on health care research as a form of self-reflection. Qual Health Res. 2006;16:405–414. doi:10.1177/1049732305285856
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmann B, Svenaeus F. How medical technologies shape the experience of illness. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2018;14. doi:10.1186/s40504-018-0069-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalibert L. Living with spinal cord stimulation: doing embodiment and incorporation. Sci Technol Human Values. 2016;41:635–659. doi:10.1177/0162243915617833
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oudshoorn N. Sustaining cyborgs: sensing and tuning agencies of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Soc Stud Sci. 2015;54:56–76. doi:10.1177/0306312714557377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Scheer L, Garcia E, van der Laan AL, van der Burg S, Boenink M. The benefits of patient involvement for translational research. Health Care Anal. 2017;25:225–241. doi:10.1007/s10728-014-0289-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacristán JA, Aguarón A, Avendaño-Solá C, et al. Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:631–640. doi:10.2147/PPA.S104259
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MDIC. Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC): Patient Centered Risk-Benefit Project Report. Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC); 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Whichello C, Bywall KS, Mauer J, et al. An overview of critical decision-points in the medical product lifecycle: where to include patient preference information in the decision-making process? Health Policy. 2020;124(12):1325–1332. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.07.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho M, Saha A, McCleary KK, et al. A framework for incorporating patient preferences regarding benefits and risks into regulatory assessment of medical technologies. Value Health. 2016;19(6):746–750. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw J, et al. Beyond “implementation”: digital health innovation and service design. NPJ Digit Med. 2018:1–5. doi:10.1038/s41746-018-0059-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb EJD, Meads D, Eskyte I, et al. A Systematic review of discrete-choice experiments and conjoint analysis studies in people with multiple sclerosis. Patient. 2018;11(4):391–402. doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0296-y
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reen GK, Silber E, Langdon DW. Multiple sclerosis patients’ understanding and preferences for risks and benefits of disease-modifying drugs: a systematic review. J Neurol Sci. 2017;375:107–122. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2016.12.038
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser LA, Louapre C, Uyl-de Groot CA, Redekop WK. Patient needs and preferences in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020;39:101929. doi:10.1016/j.msard.2020.101929
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders EB-N, Stappers PJ. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design. 2008;4:5–18.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson A, Rivas C, Giovannoni G. Multiple sclerosis outpatient future groups: improving the quality of participant interaction and ideation tools within service improvement activities. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15. doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0773-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Young F, Samadi N, Boyd H, et al. Multiple sclerosis relapse recognition: using co-design to improve patient self-reports. Br J Neurosci Nurs. 2019;15(2):76–82. doi:10.12968/bjnn.2019.15.2.76
   Google Scholar
• Eyles H, Jull A, Dobson R, et al. Co-design of mHealth delivered interventions: a systematic review to assess key methods and processes. Curr Nutr Rep. 2016;5(3):160–167. doi:10.1007/s13668-016-0165-7
   Google Scholar
• Graham T, Sooriah S, Giampieri S, Box R, Grocott P. Iterative codesign and testing of a novel dressing glove for epidermolysis bullosa. J Wound Care. 2019;28:5–14. doi:10.12968/jowc.2019.28.1.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd H, Mckernon S, Mullin B, Old A. Improving healthcare through the use of co-design. N Z Med J. 2012;125(1357):76–87.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Page R. (2017). Speculative co-design: a framework for designing medical devices towards enhanced usability, through explorations of experience. In: Seemann K and Barron D, Editors. Design4Health, Melbourne. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Design4Health 2017, (pp. page range of paper) Melbourne Cricket Ground, 4 - 7 Dec 2017, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Centre for Design Innovation, Swinburne University of Technology. ISBN-13: 978-0-6480892-1-6 
   Google Scholar
• Shah SGS, Robinson I, Alshawi S. Developing medical device technologies from users’ perspectives: a theoretical framework for involving users in the development process. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:514–521. doi:10.1017/S0266462309990328
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynd LD, Henrich NJ, Hategeka C, et al. Perspectives of patients with multiple sclerosis on drug treatment: a qualitative study. Int J MS Care. 2018;20(6):269–277. doi:10.7224/1537-2073.2017-109
   PubMedGoogle Scholar