Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39666042›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurology2024

Unveiling preferences in multiple sclerosis care: insights from an Italian discrete-choice experiment with patients and healthcare professionals.

Claudio Gasperini, Mario Alberto Battaglia, Federica Balzani, Emanuela Chiarini, Marcello Pani, Patrizio Pasqualetti, Vincenzo Brescia Morra, Massimo Filippi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Claudio GasperiniDepartment of Neuroscience, Azienda Ospedaliera San Camillo Forlanini, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3959-4067
Mario Alberto BattagliaDepartment of Life Science, University of Siena, Siena; and Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla (FISM), Genoa, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8106-8239
Federica BalzaniAssociazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla (AISM), Genoa, Italy.
Emanuela ChiariniRegional Reference Centre for Multiple Sclerosis, Montichiari Hospital (BS), ASST degli Spedali Civili di Brescia, Montichiari, Italy.
Marcello PaniHospital Pharmacy, Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-4546-5952
Patrizio PasqualettiSection of Health Statistics and Biometry, Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Pharmacy and Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. patrizio.pasqualetti@uniroma1.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5560-1979
Vincenzo Brescia MorraDepartment of Neuroscience (NSRO), Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Care and Research Centre, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2807-6483
Massimo FilippiNeurology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5485-0479

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, inflammatory, demyelinating, neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system, significantly impacting patients' quality of life. Understanding patient and healthcare professional (HCP) preferences for MS treatments is crucial for optimizing therapeutic strategies and improving adherence and outcomes. This Discrete-Choice Experiment (DCE) assesses preferences for various MS treatment attributes among Italian patients and HCPs. The sample included 1069 patients and 186 HCPs. Key attributes evaluated were treatment administration route, frequency, location, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), such as cognitive impairment, fatigue, and mobility. Data were collected through questionnaires and responses were analyzed to determine the relative importance (RI) and utility of each attribute. Both patients and HCPs highly prioritized PROMs, with cognitive impairments and walking ability being the most critical factors. Patients showed a strong preference for oral administration and treatments administered biannually at home, whereas HCPs preferred hospital-based treatments. The "Time to Progression" attribute was more significant for HCPs than for patients, reflecting different priorities between the groups. The study highlighted the importance of treatment convenience, with patients favoring less-frequent administration schedules and home-based treatment options. This study underscores the necessity of incorporating both patient and HCP perspectives into MS treatment planning. Shared decision-making, which considers individual preferences, can enhance treatment adherence and outcomes. These insights into treatment preferences provide valuable guidance for personalized MS care, aiming to improve patient quality of life and optimize therapeutic efficacy.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelMultiple SclerosisPatient PreferenceAdultAgedChoice BehaviorFemaleHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresDiscrete choice experiment (DCE)Healthcare professionals (HCPs)Multiple sclerosis (MS)Patient preferencesTreatment attributes

Identifiers

PMID39666042
PMCPMC11638307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.