Relapse prevalence, symptoms, and health care engagement: patient insights from the Multiple Sclerosis in America 2017 survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Underestimation of relapse in multiple sclerosis (MS) is detrimental to the patient as well as to their relationship with their MS healthcare professional (HCP). OBJECTIVE: To obtain direct insight into relapse prevalence, symptoms, and HCP engagement from patients with MS who responded to the Multiple Sclerosis in America (MSIA) 2017 survey. METHODS: Information on patient demographics, health insurance coverage, symptoms, disability, relapses, and related HCP interactions were captured. Descriptive analyses were conducted and relapses were annualized. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate frequency of patient engagement, i.e. speaking with or seeing their HCP during relapse with annualized relapse frequency and topics discussed. RESULTS: Of the 5,311 patient-respondents, the mean age was 51.2 years (84.3% female, 89.3% Caucasian); 40.1% were on disability, and 96.8% had health insurance coverage. A total of 72.2% of patients were diagnosed with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS); 74.8% of patients not reporting a diagnosis of primary progressive MS (PPMS) (n = 4819) were using disease-modifying therapy. In the 2 years preceding the survey, 73.1% experienced a relapse for a median number of 2 relapses; this corresponded to an annualized relapse distribution among all patients of 44.1% with < 1 relapse, 35.5% with 1-2 relapses, and 20.2% with > 2 relapses. In patients reporting relapses, 62.5% cited an average relapse duration of < 1 month, 10.9% cited 1-2 months, and 13.6% cited > 2 months (12.9% were unsure/didn't recall). Leading symptoms experienced with MS relapse were fatigue (77.4%), numbness/tingling (70.0%), and walking or balance issues (68.8%). With respect to HCP engagement during relapse, 46.9% of patients reported doing so always/often, vs. sometimes (27.3%), rarely (18.5%), and never (7.3%). The most common reasons cited for not engaging an HCP were that the relapse was not severe enough (57.9%), the HCP was unhelpful or didn't specifically tell the patient to contact them (30.9%), the treatment didn't work well or wasn't tolerated (25.6%), or the preference to manage alone (24.4%). A higher percentage of patients with 1 relapse coincided with the highest frequency of HCP engagement during relapse, and the highest percentage of patients with ≥ 5 relapses coincided with the lowest frequency of HCP engagement during relapse. Key relapse-related and MS-related topics were discussed more by patients who always/often engage their HCP during relapse. HCP follow-up after relapse was variable, with 35.0% of patients reporting follow-up within 1 month of first contact, 50.3% reporting follow-up at the next office visit, and 14.7% reporting no follow-up. CONCLUSION: MS relapse remains particularly challenging for certain patients; some experience > 2 relapses in 1 year, relapse durations > 1 month, and relapse symptoms that interfere with daily functioning (e.g. walking/balance by 68.8%). Approximately 25% of patients reported rarely or never engaging their HCP during relapse. Common reasons for not engaging, like HCP helpfulness and treatment effectiveness/tolerance, warrant further exploration. Results indicating the benefits of timely touchpoints on both the part of the patient and HCP during relapse include the relationship between higher frequency of engagement with lower relapse frequency and more discussion of both relapse-related and MS-related discussion topics. Survey limitations apply.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it