Best Methods of Communicating Clinical Trial Data to Improve Understanding of Treatments for Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

Gurpreet Reen; Eli Silber; Dawn Langdon

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.015

Best Methods of Communicating Clinical Trial Data to Improve Understanding of Treatments for Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

Gurpreet Reen, Eli Silber, Dawn Langdon

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

46 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background

Patients’ understanding of treatment risks and benefits is a prerequisite for shared decision making. Yet, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) do not accurately understand treatment information provided in regular clinical consultations.

Objectives

To identify the best methods of communicating clinical trial data to improve the understanding of treatments among patients with MS and to also examine the relationship between patients’ understanding with decisional conflict, individual traits, and MS symptoms.

Methods

A repeated-measures study was used. A sample of relapsing-remitting patients with MS was recruited from National Health Service sites in the United Kingdom. Patients were presented with hypothetical treatment risks and benefits from faux clinical trials. Treatments were communicated using absolute terms, relative terms, and numbers needed to treat/harm. The presence of baseline information with each method was also manipulated. Patients’ understanding and conflict in treatment decisions were assessed. Individual traits and MS symptoms were also recorded.

Results

Understanding was better when treatments were communicated in absolute terms (mean 3.99 ± 0.93) compared with relative terms (mean 2.93 ± 0.91; P < 0.001) and numbers needed to treat/harm (mean 2.89 ± 0.88; P < 0.001). Adding baseline information to all methods significantly improved understanding (mean 5.04 ± 0.96) compared with no baseline information (mean 1.50 ± 0.74; P < 0.001). Understanding was not related to conflict in treatment decisions (r = −0.131; P = 0.391). Numeracy, IQ, and cognitive impairments were significantly related to patients’ understanding of treatments.

Conclusions

Treatment risks and benefits should ideally be communicated using absolute terms, alongside baseline information. Patients with MS with low numeracy, low IQ, and reduced cognitive skills should be supported during treatment education.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	762-766
Number of pages	5
Journal	Value in Health
Volume	21
Issue number	7
Early online date	9 Feb 2018
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.015
Publication status	Published - Jul 2018

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.015

Accepted_manuscript_Value_in_Health_Accepted author manuscript, 199 KBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

@article{373efd35608545bb865f38bf423fdf28,

title = "Best Methods of Communicating Clinical Trial Data to Improve Understanding of Treatments for Patients with Multiple Sclerosis",

abstract = "BackgroundPatients{\textquoteright} understanding of treatment risks and benefits is a prerequisite for shared decision making. Yet, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) do not accurately understand treatment information provided in regular clinical consultations.ObjectivesTo identify the best methods of communicating clinical trial data to improve the understanding of treatments among patients with MS and to also examine the relationship between patients{\textquoteright} understanding with decisional conflict, individual traits, and MS symptoms.MethodsA repeated-measures study was used. A sample of relapsing-remitting patients with MS was recruited from National Health Service sites in the United Kingdom. Patients were presented with hypothetical treatment risks and benefits from faux clinical trials. Treatments were communicated using absolute terms, relative terms, and numbers needed to treat/harm. The presence of baseline information with each method was also manipulated. Patients{\textquoteright} understanding and conflict in treatment decisions were assessed. Individual traits and MS symptoms were also recorded.ResultsUnderstanding was better when treatments were communicated in absolute terms (mean 3.99 ± 0.93) compared with relative terms (mean 2.93 ± 0.91; P < 0.001) and numbers needed to treat/harm (mean 2.89 ± 0.88; P < 0.001). Adding baseline information to all methods significantly improved understanding (mean 5.04 ± 0.96) compared with no baseline information (mean 1.50 ± 0.74; P < 0.001). Understanding was not related to conflict in treatment decisions (r = −0.131; P = 0.391). Numeracy, IQ, and cognitive impairments were significantly related to patients{\textquoteright} understanding of treatments.ConclusionsTreatment risks and benefits should ideally be communicated using absolute terms, alongside baseline information. Patients with MS with low numeracy, low IQ, and reduced cognitive skills should be supported during treatment education.",

author = "Gurpreet Reen and Eli Silber and Dawn Langdon",

year = "2018",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.015",

language = "English",

volume = "21",

pages = "762--766",

journal = "Value in Health",

issn = "1098-3015",

publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Best Methods of Communicating Clinical Trial Data to Improve Understanding of Treatments for Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

AU - Reen, Gurpreet

AU - Silber, Eli

AU - Langdon, Dawn

PY - 2018/7

Y1 - 2018/7

N2 - BackgroundPatients’ understanding of treatment risks and benefits is a prerequisite for shared decision making. Yet, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) do not accurately understand treatment information provided in regular clinical consultations.ObjectivesTo identify the best methods of communicating clinical trial data to improve the understanding of treatments among patients with MS and to also examine the relationship between patients’ understanding with decisional conflict, individual traits, and MS symptoms.MethodsA repeated-measures study was used. A sample of relapsing-remitting patients with MS was recruited from National Health Service sites in the United Kingdom. Patients were presented with hypothetical treatment risks and benefits from faux clinical trials. Treatments were communicated using absolute terms, relative terms, and numbers needed to treat/harm. The presence of baseline information with each method was also manipulated. Patients’ understanding and conflict in treatment decisions were assessed. Individual traits and MS symptoms were also recorded.ResultsUnderstanding was better when treatments were communicated in absolute terms (mean 3.99 ± 0.93) compared with relative terms (mean 2.93 ± 0.91; P < 0.001) and numbers needed to treat/harm (mean 2.89 ± 0.88; P < 0.001). Adding baseline information to all methods significantly improved understanding (mean 5.04 ± 0.96) compared with no baseline information (mean 1.50 ± 0.74; P < 0.001). Understanding was not related to conflict in treatment decisions (r = −0.131; P = 0.391). Numeracy, IQ, and cognitive impairments were significantly related to patients’ understanding of treatments.ConclusionsTreatment risks and benefits should ideally be communicated using absolute terms, alongside baseline information. Patients with MS with low numeracy, low IQ, and reduced cognitive skills should be supported during treatment education.

AB - BackgroundPatients’ understanding of treatment risks and benefits is a prerequisite for shared decision making. Yet, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) do not accurately understand treatment information provided in regular clinical consultations.ObjectivesTo identify the best methods of communicating clinical trial data to improve the understanding of treatments among patients with MS and to also examine the relationship between patients’ understanding with decisional conflict, individual traits, and MS symptoms.MethodsA repeated-measures study was used. A sample of relapsing-remitting patients with MS was recruited from National Health Service sites in the United Kingdom. Patients were presented with hypothetical treatment risks and benefits from faux clinical trials. Treatments were communicated using absolute terms, relative terms, and numbers needed to treat/harm. The presence of baseline information with each method was also manipulated. Patients’ understanding and conflict in treatment decisions were assessed. Individual traits and MS symptoms were also recorded.ResultsUnderstanding was better when treatments were communicated in absolute terms (mean 3.99 ± 0.93) compared with relative terms (mean 2.93 ± 0.91; P < 0.001) and numbers needed to treat/harm (mean 2.89 ± 0.88; P < 0.001). Adding baseline information to all methods significantly improved understanding (mean 5.04 ± 0.96) compared with no baseline information (mean 1.50 ± 0.74; P < 0.001). Understanding was not related to conflict in treatment decisions (r = −0.131; P = 0.391). Numeracy, IQ, and cognitive impairments were significantly related to patients’ understanding of treatments.ConclusionsTreatment risks and benefits should ideally be communicated using absolute terms, alongside baseline information. Patients with MS with low numeracy, low IQ, and reduced cognitive skills should be supported during treatment education.

U2 - 10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.015

DO - 10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.015

M3 - Article

SN - 1098-3015

VL - 21

SP - 762

EP - 766

JO - Value in Health

JF - Value in Health

IS - 7

ER -