IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0059042.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prognostic Risk Estimates of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis and Their Physicians: Comparison to an Online Analytical Risk Counseling Tool

Author

Listed:
  • Christoph Heesen
  • Wolfgang Gaissmaier
  • Franziska Nguyen
  • Jan-Patrick Stellmann
  • Jürgen Kasper
  • Sascha Köpke
  • Christian Lederer
  • Anneke Neuhaus
  • Martin Daumer

Abstract

Background: Prognostic counseling in multiple sclerosis (MS) is difficult because of the high variability of disease progression. Simultaneously, patients and physicians are increasingly confronted with making treatment decisions at an early stage, which requires taking individual prognoses into account to strike a good balance between benefits and harms of treatments. It is therefore important to understand how patients and physicians estimate prognostic risk, and whether and how these estimates can be improved. An online analytical processing (OLAP) tool based on pooled data from placebo cohorts of clinical trials offers short-term prognostic estimates that can be used for individual risk counseling. Objective: The aim of this study was to clarify if personalized prognostic information as presented by the OLAP tool is considered useful and meaningful by patients. Furthermore, we used the OLAP tool to evaluate patients' and physicians' risk estimates. Within this evaluation process we assessed short-time prognostic risk estimates of patients with MS (final n = 110) and their physicians (n = 6) and compared them with the estimates of OLAP. Results: Patients rated the OLAP tool as understandable and acceptable, but to be only of moderate interest. It turned out that patients, physicians, and the OLAP tool ranked patients similarly regarding their risk of disease progression. Both patients' and physicians' estimates correlated most strongly with those disease covariates that the OLAP tool's estimates also correlated with most strongly. Exposure to the OLAP tool did not change patients' risk estimates. Conclusion: While the OLAP tool was rated understandable and acceptable, it was only of modest interest and did not change patients' prognostic estimates. The results suggest, however, that patients had some idea regarding their prognosis and which factors were most important in this regard. Future work with OLAP should assess long-term prognostic estimates and clarify its usefulness for patients and physicians facing treatment decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Christoph Heesen & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Franziska Nguyen & Jan-Patrick Stellmann & Jürgen Kasper & Sascha Köpke & Christian Lederer & Anneke Neuhaus & Martin Daumer, 2013. "Prognostic Risk Estimates of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis and Their Physicians: Comparison to an Online Analytical Risk Counseling Tool," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-6, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0059042
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0059042
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0059042&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0059042?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Laura Dennison & Martina Brown & Sarah Kirby & Ian Galea, 2018. "Do people with multiple sclerosis want to know their prognosis? A UK nationwide study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Laura Dennison & Ellen McCloy Smith & Katherine Bradbury & Ian Galea, 2016. "How Do People with Multiple Sclerosis Experience Prognostic Uncertainty and Prognosis Communication? A Qualitative Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-14, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0059042. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.