Improvement of medical judgments by numerical training in patients with multiple sclerosis.
cognition
decision making
intervention
multiple sclerosis
relapsing-remitting
risk comprehension
Journal
European journal of neurology
ISSN: 1468-1331
Titre abrégé: Eur J Neurol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9506311
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2019
01 2019
Historique:
received:
17
07
2018
accepted:
09
08
2018
pubmed:
18
8
2018
medline:
4
6
2019
entrez:
18
8
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
People with multiple sclerosis (MS) have to face important decisions with regard to their medical treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a targeted cognitive training reduces framing effects and thus improves medical judgments. This was a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study enrolling patients with relapsing-remitting MS and healthy controls (HCs). Participants were randomly assigned to training order A (first week, numerical training; second week, control training) or B (reverse order). The primary endpoint was changed in a framing task score (framing effect). In the framing task, participants evaluated the success of fictive medications on a 7-point scale. Medications were described in either positive or negative terms. A total of 37 patients and 73 HCs performed either training order A (n = 56) or B (n = 54). The framing effect decreased after the numerical training regardless of training order. No such decrease was found after the control training. Mean change in framing effect was -0.3 ± 0.8 after the numerical training and 0.03 ± 0.6 after the control training. This specific effect of training type was comparable between groups. Judgments of medical information improve in both patients with relapsing-remitting MS and HCs after a targeted numerical training. Thus, a specific cognitive intervention may help patients making informed decisions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
People with multiple sclerosis (MS) have to face important decisions with regard to their medical treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a targeted cognitive training reduces framing effects and thus improves medical judgments.
METHODS
This was a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study enrolling patients with relapsing-remitting MS and healthy controls (HCs). Participants were randomly assigned to training order A (first week, numerical training; second week, control training) or B (reverse order). The primary endpoint was changed in a framing task score (framing effect). In the framing task, participants evaluated the success of fictive medications on a 7-point scale. Medications were described in either positive or negative terms.
RESULTS
A total of 37 patients and 73 HCs performed either training order A (n = 56) or B (n = 54). The framing effect decreased after the numerical training regardless of training order. No such decrease was found after the control training. Mean change in framing effect was -0.3 ± 0.8 after the numerical training and 0.03 ± 0.6 after the control training. This specific effect of training type was comparable between groups.
CONCLUSION
Judgments of medical information improve in both patients with relapsing-remitting MS and HCs after a targeted numerical training. Thus, a specific cognitive intervention may help patients making informed decisions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30117230
doi: 10.1111/ene.13778
pmc: PMC6586155
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
106-112Informations de copyright
© 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.
Références
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2005 Jul;60(4):P215-8
pubmed: 15980289
Psychol Sci. 2006 May;17(5):407-13
pubmed: 16683928
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2007 Jun;3(2):259-68
pubmed: 18360634
Health Educ Behav. 2009 Dec;36(6):1065-81
pubmed: 19834054
Psychol Bull. 2009 Nov;135(6):943-73
pubmed: 19883143
Mult Scler. 2010 Dec;16(12):1507-12
pubmed: 20826527
J Neurol Sci. 2010 Nov 15;298(1-2):46-51
pubmed: 20864127
Ann Neurol. 2011 Feb;69(2):292-302
pubmed: 21387374
Cogn Process. 2012 Nov;13(4):321-32
pubmed: 22915277
PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e50718
pubmed: 23227201
Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2013;20(6):639-59
pubmed: 23234437
Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2014 Jan;14(1):115-26
pubmed: 24289270
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Jan;62(1):16-24
pubmed: 24417410
J Alzheimers Dis. 2014;40(3):531-40
pubmed: 24473188
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2015 May;86(5):530-6
pubmed: 25006208
J Neurol Sci. 2014 Sep 15;344(1-2):80-7
pubmed: 25037284
Arch Neurol. 1989 Oct;46(10):1121-3
pubmed: 2803071
Cogn Process. 2017 Aug;18(3):249-260
pubmed: 28474098
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2017 Dec;25(6):479-484
pubmed: 29251977
Health Psychol. 2018 Jul;37(7):680-690
pubmed: 29863373
J Alzheimers Dis. 2018;64(4):1213-1226
pubmed: 30010137
Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444-52
pubmed: 6685237
Science. 1981 Jan 30;211(4481):453-8
pubmed: 7455683