Perceptions on the value of bodily functions in multiple sclerosis. (3rd December 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Heesen, C.; Haase, R.; Melzig, S.; Poettgen, J.; Berghoff, M.; Paul, F.; Zettl, U.; Marziniak, M.; Angstwurm, K.; Kern, R.; Ziemssen, T.; Stellmann, J. P.
• Is Part Of: Acta neurologica Scandinavica. Volume 137:Number 3(2018)
• Page Start: 356
• Page End: 362
• Publication Date: 2017-12-03
• Subjects: bodily functions -- multiple sclerosis -- patient perspective -- physician perspective -- quality of life; Neurology -- Periodicals; 616.8
• DOI: 10.1111/ane.12881
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0001-6314

Abstract

Abstract : Background: In neurological diseases presenting with a plethora of symptoms, the value of bodily functions for a given patient might be a guide for clinical management. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is paradigmatic in this respect, and little is known about the value of different bodily functions of patients and their physicians' perceptions. Methods: In a multicenter study, 171 patients with relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), 61% with a clinically active disease within the last 2 years were followed over up to 3 years and yearly patients and their study physician rated on the perceived value of 13 bodily functions via a priority list. Differences between patients and physicians as well as modulating disease demographic factors were analyzed. Results: Patients with RRMS rated visual function followed by thinking and memory and walking highest while physicians stressed mobility, followed by thinking and memory and alertness most. Ratings were independent from disease duration or disability. Strongest value judgment differences were seen in swallowing regarded more relevant by patients and hand function regarded more relevant by physicians. In general, patients' and physicians' ratings through time were quite stable. Collapsing physical items into a physical functioning scale and mental items in a mental function scale, both dimensions were regarded equally important by patients while physicians underscored physical functioning ( P = .016). Conclusion: There are differences between patients and physicians in value statements of bodily functions in MS. In particular, visual functioning is under‐recognized by physicians.