RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the current information sources of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in the early stages of their disease and to identify patients' preferred source of information. The relative amounts of information from the different sources were also compared. METHODS: Participants at a newly diagnosed information session organized by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of South Australia were invited to complete a questionnaire. Participants were asked to rate on a visual analog scale how much information they had received about MS and optic neuritis from different information sources and how much information they would like to receive from each of the sources. RESULTS: A close to ideal amount of information is being provided by the MS society and MS specialist nurses. There is a clear deficit between what information patients are currently receiving and the amount of information they actually want from various sources. Patients wish to receive significantly more information from treating general practitioners, eye specialists, neurologists, and education sessions. Patients have identified less than adequate information received on optic neuritis from all sources. CONCLUSION: This study noted a clear information deficit regarding MS from all sources. This information deficit is more pronounced in relation to optic neuritis and needs to be addressed in the future. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: More patient information and counselling needs to be provided to MS patients even at early stages of their disease, especially in relation to management of disease relapse.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients' understanding of their condition affect the choice of treatment. The aim of this study is to evaluate patients' understanding and treatment preferences before and after an information session on the treatment of acute optic neuritis. METHODS: Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire consisting of 14 questions before and after an information session presented by a neuro-ophthalmologist. The information session highlighted the treatment options and the treatment effects based on the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial in plain patient language. The information session stressed the finding that high dose intravenous steroid therapy accelerated visual recovery but does not change final vision and that treatment with oral prednisone alone resulted in a higher incidence of recurrent optic neuritis. RESULTS: Before the information session, 23 (85%) participants knew that there was treatment available for ON and this increased to 27 (100%) after the information session. There were no significantly change in patients knowledge of symptoms of ON and purpose of treatment before and after the information session. Before the information session, 4 (14%) respondents reported they would like to be treated by oral steroid alone in the event of an optic neuritis and 5 (19%) did not respond. After the education session, only 1 patient (4%) indicated they would undergo treatment with oral steroid alone but 25 (92%) indicated they would undergo treatment with intravenous steroid treatment, alone or in combination with oral treatment. Results indicated that there were significant differences in the numbers of participants selecting that they would undergo treatment with a steroid injection (n = 22, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients have shown good understanding of the symptoms and signs of optic neuritis. The finding that significant increases in the likelihood of patients engaging in best practice can be achieved with an information session is very important. This suggests that patient knowledge of available treatments and outcomes can play an important role in implementing and adopting guideline recommendations.
