BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of an evidence-based patient decision aid (DA) on multiple sclerosis (MS) immunotherapy. METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-seven MS patients who were considering or reconsidering immunotherapy participated in a randomized community-based controlled trial in Germany. An intervention group (IG) received the DA and a control group (CG) received standard information. Primary outcome measure was the match between the patient's preferred and actual roles during consultation with the physician. Secondary end-point was treatment choice. The course of the decision-making process and patients; evaluation of the decision were also evaluated. Data were collected at baseline, after receiving the information, after consultation with the physician and 6 months after baseline. RESULTS: The percentage of preference matches did not differ between groups (IG 49%, CG 51%, P = 0.71). There were no differences in immunotherapy choices between groups. IG patients temporarily became more critical of immunotherapy and rated the information as significantly more helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Although the intervention led to intensified processing of the information it affected neither the roles adopted in physician-patient encounters nor the immunotherapy choices made. Providing patients with balanced information may not be sufficient to alter the decision-making process.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of an evidence-based patient decision aid (DA) on multiple sclerosis (MS) immunotherapy. METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-seven MS patients who were considering or reconsidering immunotherapy participated in a randomized community-based controlled trial in Germany. An intervention group (IG) received the DA and a control group (CG) received standard information. Primary outcome measure was the match between the patient's preferred and actual roles during consultation with the physician. Secondary end-point was treatment choice. The course of the decision-making process and patients; evaluation of the decision were also evaluated. Data were collected at baseline, after receiving the information, after consultation with the physician and 6 months after baseline. RESULTS: The percentage of preference matches did not differ between groups (IG 49%, CG 51%, P = 0.71). There were no differences in immunotherapy choices between groups. IG patients temporarily became more critical of immunotherapy and rated the information as significantly more helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Although the intervention led to intensified processing of the information it affected neither the roles adopted in physician-patient encounters nor the immunotherapy choices made. Providing patients with balanced information may not be sufficient to alter the decision-making process.