Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35669877›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022

Models of Care in Multiple Sclerosis: A Survey of Canadian Health Providers.

Ruth Ann Marrie, Sarah J Donkers, Draga Jichici, Olinka Hrebicek, Luanne Metz, Sarah A Morrow, Jiwon Oh, Julie Pétrin, Penelope Smyth, Virginia Devonshire

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Barancik lecture: Comorbidity in multiple sclerosis-Looking backward, looking forward.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors.

Ruth Ann MarrieDepartment of Internal Medicine, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MA, Canada.
Sarah J DonkersSchool of Rehabilitation Science, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Draga JichiciDepartment of Critical Care Medicine and Neurology, Hamilton Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Olinka HrebicekRoyal Jubilee Hospital, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Luanne MetzDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Sarah A MorrowDepartment of Clinical Neurological Sciences, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Jiwon OhDivision of Neurology, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Julie PétrinSchool of Rehabilitation Science, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Penelope SmythDepartment of Medicine and Neuroscience and Mental Health Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Virginia DevonshireDepartment of Medicine (Neurology), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Little work has evaluated integrated models of care in multiple sclerosis (MS) and the composition of MS care teams across Canada is largely unknown. We aimed to gather information regarding existing models of MS care across Canada, and to assess the perceptions of health care providers (HCPs) regarding the models of care required to fully meet the needs of the person with MS. Methods: We conducted an anonymous online survey targeting Canadian HCPs working in MS Clinics, and neurologists delivering MS care whether or not they were based in an MS Clinic. We queried the types of HCPs delivering care within formal MS Clinics, wait times for HCPs, the perceived importance of different types of HCPs for good quality care, assessments conducted, and whether clinic databases were used. We summarized survey responses using descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 716 HCPs to whom the survey was distributed, 100 (13.9%) people responded. Of the 100 respondents, 85 (85%) indicated that their clinical practice included people with MS and responded to specific questions about clinical care. The most common types of providers within MS Clinics with integrated models of care were neurologists and MS nurses. Of 23 responding MS Clinics, 10 (43.5%) indicated that there were not enough neurologists, and 16 (69.6%) indicated that there were not enough non-neurologist HCPs to provide adequate care. More than 50% of clinics reported wait times exceeding 3 months for physiatrists, physiotherapists, psychiatrists, psychologists, neuropsychologists and urologists; in some clinics wait times for these providers exceeded 1 year. Multiple disciplines were identified as important or very important for delivering good quality MS care. Over 90% of respondents thought it was important for neurologists, nurse practitioners, MS nurses and psychiatrists to be co-located within MS Clinics. Conclusion: Canadian HCPs viewed the ideal MS service as being multidisciplinary in nature and ideally integrated. Efforts are needed to improve timely access to specialized MS care in Canada, and to evaluate how outcomes are influenced by access to care.

Indexed as

Canadamodels of caremultidisciplinarymultiple sclerosissurvey

Identifiers

PMID35669877
PMCPMC9163821

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.