Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23565270›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Decision-making in multiple sclerosis consultations in Italy: third observer and patient assessments.

Erika Pietrolongo, Andrea Giordano, Monica Kleinefeld, Paolo Confalonieri, Alessandra Lugaresi, Carla Tortorella, Maura Pugliatti, Davide Radice, Claudia Goss, Christoph Heesen and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Information provision for people with multiple sclerosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Erika PietrolongoDepartment of Neuroscience and Imaging, University G. d'Annunzio of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.
Andrea Giordano
Monica Kleinefeld
Paolo Confalonieri
Alessandra Lugaresi
Carla Tortorella
Maura Pugliatti
Davide Radice
Claudia Goss
Christoph Heesen
Alessandra Solari
AutoMS group
University of Chieti-Pescara · ITEuropean Institute of Oncology · ITUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro · ITUniversity of Sassari · ITUniversity of Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess decision-making in multiple sclerosis (MS) from third observer and patient perspectives.

methodAudio recordings of first-ever consultations with a participating physician (88 outpatients, 10 physicians) at four tertiary MS care clinics in Italy, were rated by a third observer using the Observing Patient Involvement in Shared Decision Making (OPTION) and by patients using the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS).

resultsMean patient age was 37.5, 66% were women, 72% had MS, and 28% had possible MS or other disease. Mean PICS subscale scores (range 0 poor, 100 best possible) were 71.9 (SD 24.3) for "physician facilitation" (PICS-F); 74.6 (SD 22.9) for "patient information exchange" (PICS-I); and only 22.5 (SD 16.2) for "patient decision making" (PICS-DM). Mean OPTION total score (0 poor, 100 best possible) was 29.6 (SD 10.3). Poorest OPTION scores were found for items assessing "preferred patient approach to receiving information" and "preferred patient level of involvement." Highest scores were for "clinician drawing attention to identified problem", "indicating need for decision making," and "need to review the decision." Consultation time, woman physician, patient-physician gender concordance and PICS-F were associated with higher OPTION total score; older physician and second opinion consultation were associated with lower OPTION score.

conclusionsIn line with findings in other settings, our third observer findings indicated limited patient involvement abilities of MS physicians during first consultations. Patient perceptions of physician skills were better than third observers', although they correlated. Consultations with women physicians, and younger physicians, were associated with higher third observer and patient-based scores. Our findings reveal a need to empower Italian MS physicians with better communication and shared decision-making skills, and show in particular that attention to MS patient preferences for reception of information and involvement in health decisions, need to be improved.

Indexed as

Referral and ConsultationAdultDecision MakingFemaleHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedMultiple SclerosisPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient Relations

Identifiers

PMID23565270
PMCPMC3614559
OpenAlexW2051660323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.