ArticleNeurology and therapy2022
Caregiver Involvement in MS: Duty or Disruption?
Article in Neurology and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding the Unmet Needs of People with MS at Diagnosis and Throughout Their Care Journey: Insights from a Survey-Based Study.Neurology and therapy · 2026Article
- Patient and Physician Perspectives of Treatment Burden in Multiple Sclerosis.Neurology and therapy · 2024Article
- Assessing the association between quantity and quality of family caregiver participation in decision-making clinical encounters on patient activation in the metastatic breast cancer setting.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Insights for Healthcare Providers on Shared Decision-Making in Multiple Sclerosis: A Narrative Review.Neurology and therapy · 2024Review
- Summary of Research: Caregiver Involvement in MS: Duty or Disruption?Neurology and therapy · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a complex condition with numerous physical, cognitive and emotional symptoms. These may necessitate significant, permanent lifestyle changes for people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) and their caregivers and families, meaning it is important in contemporary neurological practice to consider including families and/or caregivers in the management of MS. However, existing evidence suggests that family involvement is not always beneficial; for example, it can exert either a strong positive or negative influence on the ability of PwMS to achieve optimal outcomes from their treatment and disease management. This paper, based on a live debate between neurologists and PwMS, examines the current perceptions on constructive involvement of families and caregivers in consultations for and management of MS, and reveals several areas where additional studies are warranted. Shared decision-making in MS has historically been a collaboration solely between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and PwMS, but PwMS are now more frequently being accompanied to appointments by a support person. This paper encourages HCPs to understand the dynamics between PwMS and their support person, and to individualize consultations and information accordingly. Family and caregiver involvement in the provision of care for PwMS needs to be for the benefit of, and at the discretion of, the PwMS. Support for families of PwMS, although important, may be more effectively and appropriately delivered through other channels outside of the clinical setting. Educating HCPs on the current patient experience to enable them to provide improved personalized care will ensure a mutualistic, patient-centred relationship with PwMS, which will help to optimize outcomes. Communication tools may also facilitate these interactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.