Perspectives of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis on Drug Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients experience multiple sclerosis (MS) differently based on their disease type and other factors. This study aimed to explore the relative importance that patients with MS place on various attributes of MS drug therapies and to elucidate these patients' preferences regarding treatment characteristics such as administration, potential benefits, and side effects of the therapies. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted in Vancouver, Canada, with 23 adult patients with MS. Participants were interviewed in three groups based on disease category and MS treatment experience: treatment-naive, non-treatment-naive relapsing-remitting and non-treatment-naive progressive MS. RESULTS: Overall, the most important characteristics of MS drugs were effectiveness and side effects. As such, there is hesitancy about trying new-to-market drugs because the risks, benefits, and costs may not be well known. Participants valued stability in their treatment and generally did not want to take on the additional risk of trying a new drug if they felt that their current medication was providing benefit. Convenience and method of administration were secondary considerations that would generally be valued only if expected risks and benefits were considered equal or superior. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study shows that patients consider the impact and likelihood of benefits and side effects first and foremost when making drug treatment decisions and that other factors, such as convenience and method of administration, are of secondary concern.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".