9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Toward Digital Self-monitoring of Multiple Sclerosis : Investigating First Experiences, Needs, and Wishes of People with MS

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          CME/CNE Information

          Activity Available Online: To access the article, post-test, and evaluation online, go to http://www.cmscscholar.org .

          Target Audience: The target audience for this activity is physicians, physician assistants, nursing professionals, and other health care providers involved in the management of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

          Learning Objectives: 1) Indicate potential benefits and challenges regarding the use of digital self-monitoring tools, particularly smartphone apps and activity trackers, by people with MS. 2) Identify needs and wishes of people with MS regarding the use of digital self-monitoring tools.

          Accreditation Statement: [Figure: see text] In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC) and Delaware Media Group. The CMSC is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.

          Physician Credit The CMSC designates this journal-based activity for a maximum of 0.75 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s) . Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

          Nurse Credit The CMSC designates this enduring material for 0.75 contact hour (none in the area of pharmacology).

          Disclosures: Francois Bethoux, MD, Editor in Chief of the International Journal of MS Care (IJMSC), has served as physician planner for this activity. He has disclosed relationships with Springer Publishing (royalty); Qr8 (receipt of intellectual property rights/patent holder); Abide Therapeutics, GW Pharma (consulting fee); Biogen (speakers' bureau); and Adamas Pharmaceuticals (contracted research). Laurie Scudder, DNP, NP, has served as reviewer for this activity. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Karine Wendrich, MSc, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Pim van Oirschot, MSc, has disclosed a relationship with Orikami/MS sherpa BV (salary). Marijn Bart Martens, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Marco Heerings, MANP, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Peter Joseph Jongen, PhD, has disclosed relationships with Bayer (educational/consultancy activities) and MS sherpa BV (consulting fee). Lotte Krabbenborg, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One peer reviewer has disclosed relationships with Genentech (consulting fee, contracted research) and Novartis (contracted research). The other peer reviewers for IJMSC have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The staff at IJMSC, CMSC, and Delaware Media Group who are in a position to influence content have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Note: Financial relationships for some authors may have changed in the interval between listing these disclosures and publication of the article.

          Method of Participation: Release Date: December 1, 2019 Valid for Credit Through: December 1, 2020 In order to receive CME/CNE credit, participants must: 1) Review the continuing education information, including learning objectives and author disclosures. 2) Study the educational content. 3) Complete the post-test and evaluation, which are available at http://www.cmscscholar.org . Statements of Credit are awarded upon successful completion of the post-test with a passing score of >70% and the evaluation.

          Disclosure of Unlabeled Use: This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not approved by the FDA. CMSC and Delaware Media Group do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications. The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of CMSC or Delaware Media Group.

          Disclaimer: Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any medications, diagnostic procedures, or treatments discussed in this publication should not be used by clinicians or other health-care professionals without first evaluating their patients' conditions, considering possible contraindications or risks, reviewing any applicable manufacturer's product information, and comparing any therapeutic approach with the recommendations of other authorities.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research?

          Telephone interviews are largely neglected in the qualitative research literature and, when discussed, they are often depicted as a less attractive alternative to face-to-face interviewing. The absence of visual cues via telephone is thought to result in loss of contextual and nonverbal data and to compromise rapport, probing, and interpretation of responses. Yet, telephones may allow respondents to feel relaxed and able to disclose sensitive information, and evidence is lacking that they produce lower quality data. This apparent bias against telephone interviews contrasts with a growing interest in electronic qualitative interviews. Research is needed comparing these modalities, and examining their impact on data quality and their use for studying varying topics and populations. Such studies could contribute evidence-based guidelines for optimizing interview data. 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Rise of Consumer Health Wearables: Promises and Barriers

            Lukasz Piwek and colleagues consider whether wearable technology can become a valuable asset for health care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) in patients with multiple sclerosis

              Background There are a number of instruments that describe severity and progression of multiple sclerosis and they are increasingly used as endpoints to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. We examined to what extent the psychometric properties of two accepted instruments – EDSS and MSFC – meet methodological standards and the value they have in clinical trials. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search in relevant databases [MEDLINE (PubMed), ISI Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO & PSYNDEX, CINAHL] yielding 3,860 results. Relevant full-text publications were identified using abstract and then full-text reviews, and the literature was reviewed. Results For evaluation of psychometric properties (validity, reliability, sensitivity of change) of EDSS and MSFC, 120 relevant full-text publications were identified, 54 of them assessed the EDSS, 26 the MSFC and 40 included both instruments. The EDSS has some documented weaknesses in reliability and sensitivity to change. The main limitations of the MSFC are learning effects and the z-scores method used to calculate the total score. However, the methodological criterion of validity applies sufficiently for both instruments. For use in clinical studies, we found the EDSS to be preferred as a primary and secondary outcome measure in recent studies (50 EDSS, 9 MSFC). Conclusions Recognizing their strengths and weaknesses, both EDSS and MSFC are suitable to detect the effectiveness of clinical interventions and to monitor disease progression. Almost all publications identify the EDSS as the most widely used tool to measure disease outcomes in clinical trials. Despite some limitations, both instruments are accepted as endpoints and neither are discussed as surrogate parameters in identified publications. A great advantage of the EDSS is its international acceptance (e.g. by EMA) as a primary endpoint in clinical trials and its broad use in trials, enabling cross-study comparisons.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                International Journal of MS Care
                International Journal of MS Care
                Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers
                1537-2073
                November 2019
                November 2019
                : 21
                : 6
                : 282-291
                Article
                10.7224/1537-2073.2018-083
                6928580
                31889935
                7ae2ddb6-d86d-4fcc-be21-4b4813ab1c04
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article