Nurse-led immunotreatment DEcision Coaching In people with Multiple Sclerosis (DECIMS) - Feasibility testing, pilot randomised controlled trial and mixed methods process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decision-making is complex for people with multiple sclerosis. Profound information on available options is virtually not possible in regular neurologist encounters. The "nurse decision coach model" was developed to redistribute health professionals' tasks in supporting immunotreatment decision-making following the principles of informed shared decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of a decision coaching programme and recruitment strategies to inform the main trial. DESIGN: Feasibility testing and parallel pilot randomised controlled trial, accompanied by a mixed methods process evaluation. SETTING: Two German multiple sclerosis university centres. PARTICIPANTS PILOT TRIAL: People with suspected or relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis facing immunotreatment decisions on first line drugs were recruited. Randomisation to the intervention (n = 38) or control group (n = 35) was performed on a daily basis. Quantitative and qualitative process data were collected from people with multiple sclerosis, nurses and physicians. METHODS: We report on the development and piloting of the decision coaching programme. It comprises a training course for multiple sclerosis nurses and the coaching intervention. The intervention consists of up to three structured nurse-led decision coaching sessions, access to an evidence-based online information platform (DECIMS-Wiki) and a final physician consultation. After feasibility testing, a pilot randomised controlled trial was performed. People with multiple sclerosis were randomised to the intervention or control group. The latter had also access to the DECIMS-Wiki, but received otherwise care as usual. Nurses were not blinded to group assignment, while people with multiple sclerosis and physicians were. The primary outcome was 'informed choice' after six months including the sub-dimensions' risk knowledge (after 14 days), attitude concerning immunotreatment (after physician consultation), and treatment uptake (after six months). Quantitative process evaluation data were collected via questionnaires. Qualitative interviews were performed with all nurses and a convenience sample of nine people with multiple sclerosis. RESULTS: 116 people with multiple sclerosis fulfilled the inclusion criteria and 73 (63%) were included. Groups were comparable at baseline. Data of 51 people with multiple sclerosis (70%) were available for the primary endpoint. In the intervention group 15 of 31 (48%) people with multiple sclerosis achieved an informed choice after six months and 6 of 20 (30%) in the control group. Process evaluation data illustrated a positive response towards the coaching programme as well as good acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot-phase showed promising results concerning acceptability and feasibility of the intervention, which was well perceived by people with multiple sclerosis, most nurses and physicians. Delegating parts of the immunotreatment decision-making process to trained nurses has the potential to increase informed choice and participation as well as effectiveness of patient-physician consultations.

Patient education programme on immunotherapy in multiple sclerosis (PEPIMS): a controlled rater-blinded study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of a multi-component evidence-based education programme on disease modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis. DESIGN: Controlled trial with two consecutive patient cohorts and a gap of two months between cohorts. SETTING: Three neurological rehabilitation centres. SUBJECTS: Patients with multiple sclerosis within rehabilitation. INTERVENTIONS: Control group (CG) participants were recruited and received standard information. Two months later, intervention group (IG) participants were recruited and received a six-hour nurse-led interactive group education programme consisting of two parts and a comprehensive information brochure. MAIN MEASURES: Primary endpoint was "informed choice", comprising of adequate risk knowledge in combination with congruency between attitude towards immunotherapy and actual immunotherapy uptake. Further outcomes comprised risk knowledge, decision autonomy, anxiety and depression, self-efficacy, and fatigue. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were included (IG=75, CG=81). The intervention led to significantly more participants with informed choice (IG: 47% vs. CG: 23%, P=0.004). The rate of persons with adequate risk knowledge was significantly higher in the IG two weeks after the intervention (IG: 54% vs. CG: 31%, P=0.007), but not after six months (IG: 48% vs. CG: 31%, P=0.058). No significant differences were shown for positive attitude towards disease modifying therapy (IG: 62% vs. CG: 71%, P=0.29) and for disease modifying therapy status after six months (IG: 61.5% vs CG: 68.6%, P=0.39). Also no differences were found for autonomy preferences and decisional conflict after six months. CONCLUSION: Delivering evidence-based information on multiple sclerosis disease modifying therapies within a rehabilitation setting led to a marked increase of informed choices.

Risk Knowledge in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (RIKNO 1.0)--Development of an Outcome Instrument for Educational Interventions.

BACKGROUND: Adequate risk knowledge of patients is a prerequisite for shared decision making but few attempts have been made to develop assessment tools. Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of young adults with an increasing number of partially effective immunotherapies and therefore a paradigmatic disease to study patient involvement. OBJECTIVE/METHODS: Based on an item bank of MS risk knowledge items and patient feedback including perceived relevance we developed a risk knowledge questionnaire for relapsing remitting (RR) MS (RIKNO 1.0) which was a primary outcome measure in a patient education trial (192 early RRMS patients). RESULTS: Fourteen of the RIKNO 1.0 multiple-choice items were selected based on patient perceived relevance and item difficulty indices, and five on expert opinion. Mean item difficulty was 0.58, ranging from 0.14 to 0.79. Mean RIKNO 1.0 score increased after the educational intervention from 10.6 to 12.4 (p = 0.0003). Selected items were particularly difficult (e.g. those on absolute risk reductions of having a second relapse) and were answered correctly in only 30% of the patients, even after the intervention. CONCLUSION: Despite its high difficulty, RIKNO 1.0 is a responsive instrument to assess risk knowledge in RRMS patients participating in educational interventions.