Decision making under uncertainty, therapeutic inertia, and physicians' risk preferences in the management of multiple sclerosis (DIScUTIR MS). Issue 1 (December 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Saposnik, Gustavo; Sempere, Angel; Raptis, Roula; Prefasi, Daniel; Selchen, Daniel; Maurino, Jorge
• Is Part Of: BMC neurology. Volume 16:Issue 1(2016)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 9
• Publication Date: 2016-12
• Subjects: Neurology -- Periodicals; 616.8005
• DOI: 10.1186/s12883-016-0577-4
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1471-2377

Abstract

Abstract Background The management of multiple sclerosis (MS) is rapidly changing by the introduction of new and more effective disease-modifying agents. The importance of risk stratification was confirmed by results on disease progression predicted by different risk score systems. Despite these advances, we know very little about medical decisions under uncertainty in the management of MS. The goal of this study is to i) identify whether overconfidence, tolerance to risk/uncertainty, herding influence medical decisions, and ii) to evaluate the frequency of therapeutic inertia (defined as lack of treatment initiation or intensification in patients not at goals of care) and its predisposing factors in the management of MS. Methods/Design This is a prospective study comprising a combination of case-vignettes and surveys and experiments from Neuroeconomics/behavioral economics to identify cognitive distortions associated with medical decisions and therapeutic inertia. Participants include MS fellows and MS experts from across Spain. Each participant will receive an individual link using Qualtrics platform© that includes 20 case-vignettes, 3 surveys, and 4 behavioral experiments. The total time for completing the study is approximately 30–35 min. Case vignettes were selected to be representative of common clinical encounters in MS practice. Surveys and experiments include standardized test to measure overconfidence, aversion to risk and ambiguity, herding (following colleague's suggestions even when not supported by the evidence), physicians' reactions to uncertainty, and questions from the Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) related to risk preferences in different domains. By applying three different MS score criteria (modified Rio, EMA, Prosperini's scheme) we take into account physicians' differences in escalating therapy when evaluating medical decisions across case-vignettes. Conclusions The present study applies an innovative approach by combining tools to assess medical decisions with experiments from Neuroeconomics that applies to common scenarios in MS care. Our results will help advance the field by providing a better understanding on the influence of cognitive factors (e.g., overconfidence, aversion to risk and uncertainty, herding) on medical decisions and therapeutic inertia in the management of MS which could lead to better outcomes.