Abstract
Background:
Comprehensive and effective multiple sclerosis (MS) health care requires understanding of patients’ needs, preferences, and priorities.
Objective:
To evaluate priorities of patients with MS for their MS care.
Methods:
Participants included 3003 Americans with MS recruited through the National MS Society and the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis patient registry. Participants completed a comprehensive questionnaire on aspects of their health-care experiences.
Results:
Participants identified the top 3 health-care priorities as (1) the affordability of MS health care, (2) ensuring that non-MS health-care providers have more education about MS and how it can interact with other conditions, and (3) access to an MS center or specialized MS clinic with MS health-care professionals together in one place. Participants receiving care in an MS center rated the quality and their satisfaction with care higher than those receiving care in other settings. Although having the opportunity to evaluate their health-care quality was important to the participants, only 36.4% had been provided the opportunity in the past year.
Conclusions:
This study identifies health-care priorities and concerns for Americans with MS.
Keywords: health-care access, health-care delivery, multiple sclerosis, national survey
Introduction
The Institute of Medicine defined high-quality health care as including services consistent with patient values and preferences and ensuring that decisions reflect patients’ needs and preferences (1). Although health care is more effective when consumers are active participants in its design and delivery (1 –7), people with multiple sclerosis (MS) have had little involvement in the design of their care or in the development and assessment of health-care outcomes. Rather, clinical guidelines and performance standards for MS care have been almost exclusively derived through the consensus of health-care providers and expert panels (8).
In order to develop a better understanding of the patient’s perspective on MS care, this study addressed the following research questions:
What are the health-care priorities of Americans with MS?
How satisfied are patients with their health care and providers?
Are characteristics of health-care interactions related to satisfaction of patients with MS with their care?
Do patients with MS have access to the providers and specialists they want to see?
Do MS health-care providers ask patients about important health topics?
Method
Design and Participants
This descriptive study used a nonexperimental, cross-sectional design. It was approved by the University of Kentucky Institutional Review Board. Participants were adults with MS randomly selected from the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) Registry and National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMSS) members randomly selected from chapters in 5 states in the Midwestern and Southeastern United States. Invitations to participate were distributed to 8619 persons, including 6233 NARCOMS registry participants recruited through e-mailed (n = 3586) or mailed (n = 2647) invitation letters, and 2500 participants through the NMSS chapter mailing lists recruited through mailed invitation letters. A total of 3003 participants completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 34.8%, including 1724 completing the questionnaire via mail (57.4%) and 1279 via the Internet (42.6%).
Survey Instrument
The questionnaire was developed in a multistep iterative process including a comprehensive literature review, focus groups with NMSS members in 5 states, health-care panel reviews (1 panel of MS patients and 1 of MS health-care professionals), and pilot testing, after which the questionnaire was revised and finalized for national dissemination. The questionnaire covered information about participant demographics, MS course and treatment, MS care providers and locations of care, and health-care priorities.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 23. All statistical tests were 2-tailed, and a P value <.01 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Participants
The sample (n = 3003) was primarily female (82.9%), Caucasian (92.0%), followed by African American (3.4%), Hispanic/Latino (1.8%), and multiracial (0.7%), and had a mean age of 58.49 years (standard deviation [SD] = 11.74, range = 18-96). The majority (60.2%) of the participants were married. Most had completed either a 2-year (16.3%) or 4-year (25.1%) college degree or postgraduate studies (24.7%). Only 27% of the sample was employed either full- or part time. Among unemployed respondents, the largest percentage reported their status as being on permanent disability (32.6%), followed by retired (27.6%), homemaker (4.3%), seeking employment (2.3%), unpaid or volunteer employment (2.2%), unemployed but not seeking employment (1.9%), full-time student (0.4%), and nonreporting (1.7%). Participants’ annual household income was roughly evenly distributed across income intervals of $10 000, ranging from < $15 000 to over $100 000. Approximately 20% reported an annual household income level below $25 000 (21.3%), and 23.9% reported over $85 000. The sample included participants from each US state, with most living in suburban areas (52.6%), followed by rural (25.2%), and urban areas (20%). The majority (84.4%) had Internet access in their residence. The sample was predominantly English speaking (98.7%), with 0.3% identifying Spanish as their primary language.
The mean age at MS diagnosis was 38.75 years (SD = 10.63). Participants self-reported their MS course as relapsing remitting (54.8%) or progressive MS (30%). Most (61.6%) were currently using a disease-modifying therapy (DMT). Co-occurring medical conditions or illnesses were reported by 51.3%. The majority (92.1%) reported that they had health insurance coverage. Most reported either that they did not have any concerns about being able to pay for their MS health care (41.3%) or that they worry “some of the time” (35.3%). Almost 20%, however, reported that they worry “a lot of the time” (13.3%) or “worry constantly” (6.3%) about being able to afford their MS care. There was a significant relationship between annual household income and concern over paying for MS health care (χ2 = 170.74, df = 27, P < .001). Among patients reporting that they worry a lot of the time or constantly, 34.2% had an annual household income of $25 000 or less compared to 16.6% of those with an income of $75 000 or more.
Perspectives Concerning MS Care Priorities in Patients With MS
Participants rated the importance of 12 health-care priorities (Table 1) developed through literature review and focus groups. Participants rated each statement on a 4-point Likert-type scale: (1) Not a priority, (2) Low priority, (3) High priority, and (4) Top priority. The top 4 priorities were: (1) the affordability of MS health care; (2) non-MS health-care providers need more education about MS and how it can interact with other conditions; (3) access to an MS Center or specialized MS Clinic with MS health-care professionals together in 1 place; and (4) having a single health-care provider who coordinates MS health care.
Table 1.
Perspectives of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis Concerning Priorities for Their MS Care.a
| Health-Care Priority | Mean Rating | SD | Percent Rating Topic as a Top Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The affordability of MS health care. | 3.20 | 0.92 | 45.9% |
| 2. Non-MS health-care providers need more education about MS and how it can interact with other conditions. | 2.92 | 0.85 | 31.9% |
| 3. Access to an MS center or specialized MS clinic with MS health-care professionals together in one place. | 2.90 | 0.98 | 25.9% |
| 4. Having a single health-care provider who coordinates my MS health care. | 2.78 | 0.97 | 25.4% |
| 5. A resource for helping patients identify good, reliable, and accurate MS information on the Internet. | 2.74 | 0.93 | 23.6% |
| 6. Health insurance covering more visits for occupational and physical therapy, and speech/language therapies | 2.68 | 1.00 | 22.8% |
| 7. My MS doctor should communicate better with my other health-care providers. | 2.64 | 0.94 | 21.2% |
| 8. Naturopathic and homeopathic doctors and diet supplements should be covered by health insurance. | 2.63 | 1.03 | 17.9% |
| 9. Doctors should pay more attention to the health of the patient’s spouse/partner and caregivers. | 2.26 | 0.93 | 15.0% |
| 10. Transportation for health care. | 2.26 | 1.06 | 9.9% |
| 11. Better access to MS-care on weekends and after hours. | 2.23 | 0.93 | 9.7% |
| 12. More options for communicating electronically with health-care providers (e-mail, video, telehealth). | 2.22 | 0.95 | 8.5% |
Abbreviations: MS, multiple sclerosis; SD, standard deviation.
a Mean ratings based on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not a priority) to 4 (top priority).
Multiple Sclerosis Health Care Satisfaction
Participants rated the health care they receive from their Primary MS Health-Care Provider (PMSHP) on a 7-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = “Worst health care possible” to 7 = “Best health-care possible”). The distribution of ratings (mode = 7, median [Mdn] = 6, mean (M) = 5.84, standard deviation [SD] = 1.23) indicated that most participants evaluated the quality of their PMSHP care positively. Participants also rated their satisfaction with care: “Overall, how satisfied are you with your MS health care in general (including all MS health care),” based on a 7-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = “Completely unsatisfied” to 7 = “Completely satisfied”). The distribution of ratings (mode = 7, Mdn = 6, M = 5.72, SD = 1.35) suggested that most participants were satisfied with their MS health care.
Only 36.4% of the participants reported that their PMSHP had provided the opportunity to evaluate the quality of their health care in the last 12 months. When asked how important it is to have an opportunity to evaluate the quality of their care, based on a 7-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = “Not at all” to 7 = “Extremely”), the responses (mode = 7, Mdn = 5, M = 5.06, SD= 1.81) indicated that most participants consider this opportunity important. Participants who had the opportunity to evaluate their health care rated both the quality and their satisfaction with MS care significantly higher than those who did not have this opportunity (t (2736.77, 2751.72) = 17.08 [99% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62-0.84]; t (2736.77, 2751.72) = 13.43 [99% CI = 0.51-0.76], respectively, P < .001).
Multiple Sclerosis Health-Care Providers and Setting
The health-care provider primarily responsible for the participants’ MS treatment and follow-up was most often a neurologist (76.4%), followed by a general practice or family physician (7.2%), internist (2.3%), or nurse practitioner (2.1%). Participants primarily received their MS care at an independent medical office (37.9%), at MS Center (28.6%), or a clinic or hospital other than an MS Center (22.3%).
Analysis of variance results indicated that location of MS care was associated with significant between-group differences in both the quality of care received from one’s PMSHP (F (3,2791) = 34.53, P < .001) and overall satisfaction with MS health care (F (3,2808) = 24.14, P < .001). Specifically, using the Games-Howell procedure for post hoc analysis due to unequal sample sizes and group variances, and controlling the type I error at .001, the post hoc analysis revealed that participants attending an MS center rated the quality of care from their PMSHP significantly higher (M = 6.19, SD = 1.00) than those attending a clinic or hospital (not an MS center; M = 5.78, SD = 1.18; t (2791) = 0.41, P < .001), an independent medical office (M = 5.67, SD = 1.30; t (2791) = 0.53, P < .001), or another setting (M = 5.64, SD = 1.41; t (2791) = 0.55, P < .001).
Participants attending an MS center also rated their satisfaction with MS health care significantly higher (M = 6.05, SD = 1.06) than those attending a clinic or hospital (not an MS Center) (M = 5.70, SD = 1.34; t (2808) = 0.35, P < .001), an independent medical office (M = 5.57, SD = 1.44; t (2791) = 0.47, P < .001), or another setting (M = 5.46, SD = 1.52; t (2791) = 0.58, P < .001). Post hoc analysis revealed no significant differences in either quality or satisfaction with care between non-MS Center settings.
Approximately half (49.7%) of participants reported that there was an MS center or specialized MS care clinic within a 1-hour drive. Alternately, 47.4% of the participants stated that there were not enough MS health-care services in their area. In terms of distance to care, 32.2% reported that they traveled 10 miles or less to get to their MS health-care appointments, 29.4% traveled between 11 and 25 miles, 15.7% traveled between 26 and 50 miles, and 16.7% traveled more than 50 miles. Rural residents traveled significantly farther to appointments than those living in urban or suburban areas (χ2 = 560.56, df = 10, P < .001), with 10.6% of residents of rural counties reporting driving over 50 miles to appointments, compared to 1.8% of urban and 5.6% of suburban residents.
Participants reported the frequency of their regular PMSHP follow-up appointments as follows: more than twice a year (18.1%), every 6 months (47.1%), once a year (18.5%), every 1 to 2 years (2.8%), and 8.1% did not have regular follow-up appointments. The majority of participants reported that their appointment schedule was “about right” (81.7%), with only 10.7% reporting that the follow-up visits did not occur often enough, and 2.5% saying they occurred too often.
We asked participants “On average, how many minutes do you spend in regular appointments with your main MS care provider?” with options ranging from under 10 minutes to over 1 hour, in 5-minute intervals. The most frequently reported appointment duration was 16 to 20 minutes (24.8%), followed by 26 to 30 minutes (19.9%). About 20% each reported appointments lasting 15 minutes or less (20.7%) or over 30 minutes (20.6%). Most reported that the amount of time spent in the appointment was “about right” (73.8%). While only 3.1% reported that the amount of time was “more than enough,” 17.1% reported that the amount of time was “not enough” (78% of this group reported appointments lasting 20 minutes or less). Appointment length was associated with ratings of the quality of care (F (2,2787) = 123.19, P < .001). Games-Howell post hoc analysis revealed that the quality of care was rated significantly higher by those with a typical appointment length of 26 minutes or more (M = 6.16, SD = .99) than by those with shorter appointments, and those with appointments of 16 to 20 minutes (M = 5.84, SD = 1.16) rated the quality of care significantly higher than those with appointments of 15 minutes or less (M = 5.24, SD = 1.46).
A single health-care professional who coordinated their MS health care was reported by 37.9% of respondents. This professional was most frequently a neurologist (55.7%), followed by primary care physician (33.8%), or nurse (4.6%). Independent samples t tests revealed that participants with a single health-care coordinator (any professional) rated both quality of care and satisfaction with care higher than those without a care coordinator (t (2577.50) = 6.80, P < .001, 99% CI [0.19-0.43]; t (2623.29) = 5.95, P < .001, 99% CI [0.17-0.43], respectively, P < .001).
Health-Care Specialist Access and Need
Participants reviewed a list of health-care specialists and allied health providers and indicated whether they (1) see this type of professional as much as needed, (2) see this type of professional but would like to see them more often, (3) need to see, but do not have access to this type of professional, or (4) do not need to see this type of professional. As indicated in Table 2, the health-care professional participants most frequently identified as wanting to see more often was physical therapist. The professional participants most frequently identified as needing to see, but not having access to, was massage therapist.
Table 2.
Specialists and Other Health-Care Providers.
| Provider | I See as Much as Needed, n (%) | I See, but Would Like to See More Often, n (%) | I Need, but Do Not Have Access to This Type of provider, n (%) | Not Needed, n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ophthalmologist | 1396 (46.5) | 162 (5.4) | 104 (3.5) | 850 (28.3) |
| Urologist | 866 (28.8) | 136 (4.5) | 130 (4.3) | 1346 (44.8) |
| Internist | 855 (28.5) | 78 (2.6) | 62 (2.1) | 1420 (47.3) |
| Physical therapist | 661 (22.0) | 370 (12.3) | 332 (11.1) | 1148 (38.2) |
| Nurse practitioner | 648 (21.6) | 88 (2.9) | 89 (3.0) | 1580 (52.6) |
| Chiropractor | 366 (12.2) | 126 (4.2) | 238 (7.9) | 1665 (55.4) |
| Massage therapist | 336 (11.2) | 269 (9.0) | 627 (20.9) | 1224 (40.8) |
| Mental health counselor | 322 (10.7) | 112 (3.7) | 273 (9.1) | 1670 (55.6) |
| Orthopedist | 305 (10.2) | 79 (2.6) | 161 (5.4) | 1806 (60.1) |
| Occupational therapist | 246 (8.2) | 120 (4.0) | 174 (5.8) | 1825 (60.8) |
| Psychologist | 223 (7.4) | 73 (2.4) | 185 (6.2) | 1845 (61.4) |
| Physiatrist | 221 (7.4) | 37 (1.2) | 138 (4.6) | 1916 (63.8) |
| Neuropsychologist | 214 (7.1) | 54 (1.8) | 266 (8.9) | 1794 (59.7) |
| Nutritionist | 192 (6.4) | 89 (3.0) | 482 (16.1) | 1619 (53.9) |
| Speech/language therapist | 120 (4.0) | 26 (0.9) | 121 (4.0) | 2085 (69.4) |
| Assistive technologist/rehabilitation engineer | 77 (2.6) | 41 (1.4) | 183 (6.1) | 1977 (65.8) |
| Vocational rehabilitation counselor | 73 (2.4) | 34 (1.1) | 125 (4.2) | 2075 (69.1) |
Discussion of Health Topics in a Typical Meeting With Primary MS Care Provider
Finally, participants were provided a list of topics, identified through literature review and focus groups as being important to patients with MS, and asked “In a typical meeting with your primary MS care provider, does your provider or anyone in the provider’s office ask you about these things?” Participants also rated the importance of the topics in response to the following: “How important is it to you that your provider should ask you about this?” based on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = “Not at all”, 4 = “Extremely”). As shown in Table 3, the topics most important to the participants (scores > 3) included cognitive or memory problems, depression or anxiety, physical activity/exercise, and emotional health. The frequency with which topics were asked about appears generally aligned with the topic’s importance.
Table 3.
Multiple Sclerosis Care Provider Inquiries about Health Topics.a
| In a Typical Meeting with Your Primary MS Care Provider, Does Your Provider or Anyone in the Provider’s Office Ask You about These Things? | How Important Is It to You That Your Provider Should Ask You About This? | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Health Topics | Yes, n (%)b | No, n (%) | Mean Importance Rating (SD) |
| Cognitive (thinking) or memory problems | 1844 (68.8%) | 838 (31.2%) | 3.29 (0.96) |
| Depression or anxiety | 1794 (67%) | 883 (33%) | 3.17 (1.00) |
| Your physical activity/exercise | 2051 (76.4%) | 635 (23.6%) | 3.17 (0.95) |
| Your emotional health | 1757 (65.5%) | 926 (34.5%) | 3.15 (0.99) |
| Diet/nutrition | 1260 (47.4) | 1401 (46.7%) | 2.90 (1.06) |
| Your family’s coping | 943 (35.7%) | 1699 (64.3%) | 2.75 (1.11) |
| Complementary or alternative treatments you are using or interested in learning about | 868 (39.1%) | 1350 (60.9%) | 2.74 (1.13) |
| Your work | 1026 (41%) | 1476 (59%) | 2.42 (1.23) |
| Your sexual function | 553 (21.3%) | 2045 (78.7%) | 2.34 (1.19) |
Abbreviations: MS, multiple sclerosis; SD, standard deviation.
a Importance rating based on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (extremely).
b Valid percentage reported (percentage of those responding to this question).
We then evaluated the experiences of only those participants who indicated that the topics were either “not at all” or “extremely” important. The results (Table 4) suggest several health topics that a subgroup rated as extremely important that were not being addressed for this group, including sexual function, complementary or alternative treatments, and family coping.
Table 4.
Relative Importance of Health Topics and Extent Addressed by Primary MS Care Providers.
| Health Topic | N = 3003 | Asked about Topic in Typical Appointment? | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||
| Cognitive problems | Not at all important (n = 203, 6.8%) | 92 (45.3%) | 111 (54.7%) |
| Extremely important (n = 1319, 43.9%) | 1004 (76.1%) | 315 (23.9%) | |
| Depression/anxiety | Not at all important (n = 236, 7.9%) | 103 (43.6%) | 133 (56.4%) |
| Extremely important (n = 1157, 38.5%) | 883 (76.3%) | 274 (23.7%) | |
| Physical activity | Not at all important (n = 199, 6.6%) | 108 (54.3%) | 91 (45.7%) |
| Extremely important (n = 1100, 36.6%) | 903 (82.1%) | 197 (17.9%) | |
| Emotional health | Not at all important (n = 238, 7.9%) | 92 (38.7%) | 146 (61.3%) |
| Extremely important (n = 1133, 37.7%) | 872 (77.0%) | 261 (23.0%) | |
| Work | Not at all important (n = 772, 25.7%) | 95 (12.3%) | 677 (87.7%) |
| Extremely important (n = 605, 20.2%) | 394 (65.1%) | 211 (34.9%) | |
| Diet/nutrition | Not at all important (n = 335, 11.2%) | 258 (77.0%) | 77 (23.0%) |
| Extremely important (n = 865, 28.8%) | 525 (60.7%) | 340 (39.3%) | |
| Family coping | Not at all important (n = 439, 14.6%) | 77 (17.5%) | 362 (82.5%) |
| Extremely important (n = 781, 26.0%) | 444 (56.9%) | 337 (43.1%) | |
| Complementary or alternative treatments | Not at all important (n = 402, 13.4%) | 65 (16.2%) | 337 (83.8%) |
| Extremely important (n = 677, 22.5%) | 359 (53.0%) | 318 (47.0%) | |
| Sexual function | Not at all important (n = 796, 26.5%) | 71 (8.9%) | 725 (91.9%) |
| Extremely important (n = 536, 17.9%) | 206 (38.4%) | 330 (61.6%) | |
Abbreviation: MS, multiple sclerosis.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to expand the limited knowledge about the health-care priorities and preferences of patients with MS. The findings provide important insights to inform the development and delivery of MS health-care policy and services. Key findings are highlighted in this section.
The affordability of MS health care was a top priority, having the highest mean importance rating and largest number of participants identifying this topic as their top health-care priority. Furthermore, at least 1 in 5 participants worried a lot of the time or constantly about being able to afford to pay for their health care, despite the fact that over 90% of the participants had health-care insurance. Concern about health-care affordability was most prevalent among those with household incomes under $25 000; however, this concern was observed across income levels. This priority is consistent with recent studies that demonstrate the high cost of MS care (9 –12), which ranges from 2 to 4 times that of the general population (12,13). The largest component in costs appears to be prescription drugs and, specifically, DMTs (14 –16). According to the National MS Society, although the last decade has seen an increase in the number of DMTs, the costs have risen substantially higher than medical inflation, with costs for most DMTs exceeding $70 000 a year (15). Clearly, this priority requires continued attention and advocacy.
Access to comprehensive, coordinated MS care was also a top priority and preference. Having access to an MS center or specialized MS clinic with multiple MS professionals was the third most important health-care priority, rated the top priority by over a quarter of the participants. Similarly, having a health-care coordinator was the fourth highest rated priority and was also a top priority for over a quarter of the participants. There is growing recognition of the health and psychosocial benefits of comprehensive, interdisciplinary MS health care (17 –20). As noted by the Consortium of MS Centers, a multidimensional team approach is effective, efficient, and empowering and avoids duplication of services (18). The availability of comprehensive MS care, however, is a concern. Almost half of the participants indicated there were not enough MS health-care services in their area. Rural residence appears to be a critical barrier to accessing MS care, particularly comprehensive care, and about 1 in 10 (primarily rural-dwelling) participants traveled more than 50 miles for their MS care.
Access to specialists and allied providers was also a high priority. Specifically, participants had the highest need for, but limited access to, massage therapists, nutritionists, physical therapists, and mental health counselors. Physical and massage therapists were also identified as professionals that patients wanted to see more often. These results highlight important access gaps. Further analysis of the nature of the barriers to accessing these professionals is required in order to fully understand and effectively address this priority.
Although patients want access to multiple providers, there was frustration evidenced in the second-highest rated health-care priority: that non-MS health-care providers need to have knowledge about MS and how its treatment may impact and interact with other conditions. This priority suggests the need for increased health-care provider education and communication skills.
Finally, prior assessments of MS patients’ health-care experiences have demonstrated “a general dissatisfaction” with MS care (21), including dissatisfaction with the management and communication of the diagnosis, availability of care, and accessibility of specialized services (21 –27). The present finding of generally high satisfaction with MS care was therefore unexpected. We suggest that the current positive results be viewed with some caution, however, as satisfaction with health care is a complex and multidimensional construct (27) and was measured here using only broad metrics.
Limitations
Several limitations are associated with this descriptive, cross-sectional analysis. Multiple sclerosis care consumers are not a homogenous group, and there is no universal approach to health-care delivery that will work for everyone. The health-care priorities of people with MS vary considerably based on individual and group characteristics not accounted for in this analysis. Also, although the characteristics of the sample were generally consistent with other large population-based samples in recent national surveys, the mean age was higher than typically seen, while the number of participants reporting a minority ethnic background and with progressive MS were represented at lower rates than expected.
Conclusions
This study provides insight into the perspectives and experiences of patients with MS, and the results have important implications. Affordability of care is a top priority among patients with MS, and although it is a particular concern for those with lower incomes, the fact that about 55% of the participants had worried about their ability to pay for their health care suggests the concern is widespread. Patients with MS want coordinated, multidisciplinary care, and many have unmet needs for care from specialists. Although most participants reported relatively high satisfaction with their PMSHP, and with the length and frequency of appointments, many were not provided the opportunity to evaluate their care. Multiple sclerosis health-care providers are encouraged to explore patients’ and families’ concerns using comprehensive inquiries, and to communicate effectively about these with other providers.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, its participating chapters and members, and the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) Registry participants for their support and assistance with this research. We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Michelle Osness, MRC, with literature review and data collection.
Author Biographies
Chungyi Chiu, PhD, CRC, is an assistant professor in the Department of Kinesiology and Community Health at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Director of Health Promotion and Rehabilitation Laboratory. Her research interests include health promotion, health care, disability adjustment, and social participation (e.g., return to work, employment, transition). Her clinical background includes rehabilitation psychology and occupational therapy. She was a research fellow at the National Institute of Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. Currently, she is a research fellow for the Chez Center for Wounded Veterans in Higher Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Malachy Bishop, PhD, CRC, is the Norman L. and Barbara M. Berven Professor of Rehabilitation Psychology in the Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. When conducting the study, he was a professor in the Department of Early Childhood, Special Education, and Rehabilitation Counseling at the University of Kentucky. His research interests include vocational and psychosocial aspects of living with chronic neurological conditions.
Bradley McDaniels, PhD, is a post-doctoral research fellow with a focus of Parkinson’s disease in the Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation at Virginia Commonwealth University. As a graduate student, Bradley was a Research Assistant for Dr. Malachy Bishop in the Department of Early Childhood, Special Education, and Rehabilitation Counseling at the University of Kentucky. His research interests include psychosocial adaptation, quality of life, positive psychology, and Parkinson’s disease.
Byung-Jin Kim, MS, is a doctoral student in the rehabilitation counseling program in the Department of Early Childhood, Special Education, and Rehabilitation Counseling at the University of Kentucky. His research interest includes addiction problems such as substance abuse and internet addiction.
Lebogang Tiro, Ph.D., CRC, is an assistant teaching professor in the Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling and Special Education at Penn State University, University Park. Her research interests include living with neurological disorders and perceptions regarding disability.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded through a Health Care Delivery and Policy Research Program (HC-0168) from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, New York, NY.
References
- 1. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Multiple Sclerosis: National Clinical Guideline for Diagnosis and Management in Primary and Secondary Care London, UK: Royal College of Physicians of London; 2004. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Institute of Medicine. Multiple Sclerosis: Current Status and Strategies for the Future. Washington: National Academy Press; 2001. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Lerman CE, Brody DS, Caputo GC, Smith DG, Lazaro CG, Wolfson HG. Patients’ perceived involvement in care scale. J General Intern Med. 1990;5:29–33. doi:10.1007/bf02602306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Kaplan SH, Gandek B, Greenfield S, Rogers W, Ware JE. Patient and visit characteristics related to physicians? Participatory decision-making style. Med Care. 1995;33:1176–87. doi:10.1097/00005650-199512000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Greenfield S. Expanding patient involvement in care. Ann Intern Med. 1985;10:520–8. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-102-4-520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Greenfield S, Kaplan SH, Ware JE, Jr, Yano EM, Frank HJ. Patients’ participation in medical care: effects on blood sugar control and quality of life in diabetes. J Gen Intern Med. 1988;3:448–57. doi:10.1007/BF02595921. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Gagliardi AR, Lemieux-Charles L, Brown AD, Sullivan T, Goel V. Barriers to patient involvement in health service planning and evaluation: an exploratory study. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;70:234–41. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2007.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Campbell JD, Ghushchyan V, Brett McQueen R, Cahoon-Metzger S, Livingston T, Vollmer T, et al. Burden of multiple sclerosis on direct, indirect costs and quality of life: National US estimates. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2014;3:227–36. doi:10.1016/j.msard.2013.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Prescott JD, Factor S, Pill M, Levi GW. Descriptive analysis of the direct medical costs of multiple sclerosis in 2004 using administrative claims in a large nationwide database. J Manag Care Pharm. 2007;13:44–52. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2007.13.1.44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Ivanova JI, Bergman RE, Birnbaum HG, Phillips AL, Stewart M, Meletiche DM. Impact of medication adherence to disease-modifying drugs on severe relapse, and direct and indirect costs among employees with multiple sclerosis in the US. J Med Econ. 2012;15:601–9. doi:10.3111/13696998.2012.667027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Minden S, Frankel D, Hadden L, Hoaglin D. Access to health care for people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J. 2007;13:547–58. doi:10.1177/1352458506071306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Hartung DM, Bourdette DN, Ahmed SM, Whitham RH. The cost of multiple sclerosis drugs in the US and the pharmaceutical industry: Too big to fail?. Neurology. 2015;84(21):2185–92. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000001608. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Hartung DM. Economics and cost-effectiveness of multiple sclerosis therapies in the USA. Neurotherapeutics. 2017;14:1018–26. doi:10.1007/s13311-017-0566-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Affordability of and access to MS medications. 2018. Retrieved August 14, 2018 from: https://www.nationalmssociety.org/Get-Involved/Advocate-for-Change/Current-Advocacy-Issues/Affordability-of-and-Access-to-MS-Medications.
- 16. Adelman G, Rane SG, Villa KF. The cost burden of multiple sclerosis in the United States: a systematic review of the literature. J Med Econ. 2013;16:639–47. doi:10.3111/13696998.2013.778268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. National Guideline Clearinghouse. Guideline summary: Multiple sclerosis: management of multiple sclerosis in primary and secondary care. In: National Guideline Clearinghouse. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2014. Retrieved August 14, 2018 from: https://www.guideline.gov.
- 18. Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. Comprehensive care in multiple sclerosis. 2010. Retrieved August 14, 2018 from: www.mscare.org/resource/collection/4CB3E940-0D5C-4ADD-9C48-8FA7AAAC2DB9/CMSC_WhitePaper_Comprehensive_Care_in_MS.pdf.
- 19. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Multiple sclerosis in adults: management (NICE Clinical Guideline No. CG186). 2014. Retrieved August 14, 2018 from: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg186/chapter/4-The-Guideline-Development-Group-National-Collaborating-Centre-and-NICE-project-team. [PubMed]
- 20. Harris C, Costello K, Halper J, Hinrichs J, Hutchinson B, Naunton A, et al. Consortium of multiple sclerosis centers recommendations for care of those affected by multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2003;5:67–78. doi:10.7224/1537-2073-5.3.67. [Google Scholar]
- 21. Forbes A, While A, Taylor M. What people with multiple sclerosis perceive to be important to meeting their needs. J Adv Nurs. 2007;58:11–22. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04219.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Defriez M, Griffiths D, Millett C, Thakrar DN, Winterbotham M. The perception of the current provision of care for multiple sclerosis sufferers in the community. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2003;4:233–43. doi:10.1191/1463423603pc154oa. [Google Scholar]
- 23. Freeman JA. Community services in multiple sclerosis: still a matter of chance. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000;69:728–32. doi:10.1136/jnnp.69.6.728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Gottberg K, Einarsson U, Ytterberg C, Fredrikson S, Koch LV, Holmqvist LW. Use of health care services and satisfaction with care in people with multiple sclerosis in Stockholm County: a population-based study. Mult Scler. 2008;14:962–71. doi:10.1177/1352458508089688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Hakim EA, Bakheit AM, Bryant TN, Roberts MW, McIntosh-Michaelis SA, Spackman AJ, et al. The social impact of multiple sclerosis—a study of 305 patients and their relatives. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22:288–93. doi:10.1080/096382800296755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Hepworth M, Harrison J. A survey of the information needs of people with multiple sclerosis. Health Informatics J. 2004;10:49–69. doi:10.1177/1460458204040668. [Google Scholar]
- 27. Ytterberg C, Johansson S, Gottberg K, Holmqvist LW, Koch LV. Perceived needs and satisfaction with care in people with multiple sclerosis: a two-year prospective study. BMC Neurol. 2008;8:36 doi:10.1186/1471-2377-8-36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]