↓ Skip to main content

Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia in Multiple Sclerosis Care: A Pilot Randomized Trial Applying the Traffic Light System in Medical Education

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia in Multiple Sclerosis Care: A Pilot Randomized Trial Applying the Traffic Light System in Medical Education
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00430
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gustavo Saposnik, Jorge Maurino, Angel P. Sempere, Maria A. Terzaghi, Christian C. Ruff, Muhammad Mamdani, Philippe N. Tobler, Xavier Montalban

Abstract

Physicians often do not initiate or intensify treatments when clearly warranted, a phenomenon known as therapeutic inertia (TI). Limited information is available on educational interventions to ameliorate knowledge-to-action gaps in TI. To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of an educational intervention compared to usual care among practicing neurologists caring for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). We conducted a pilot double-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. Inclusion criteria included neurologists who are actively involved in managing MS patients. Participants were exposed to 20 simulated case-scenarios (10 cases at baseline, and 10 cases post-randomization to usual care vs. educational intervention) of relapsing-remitting MS with moderate or high risk of disease progression. The educational intervention employed a traffic light system (TLS) to facilitate decisions, allowing participants to easily recognize high-risk scenarios requiring treatment escalation. We also measured differences between blocks to invoke decision fatigue. The control group responded as they would do in their usual clinical practice not exposed to the educational intervention. The primary feasibility outcome was the proportion of participants who completed the study and the proportion of participants who correctly identified a high-risk case-scenario with the "red traffic light." Secondary outcomes included decision fatigue (defined as an increment of TI in the second block of case-scenarios compared to the first block) and the efficacy of the educational intervention measured as a reduction in TI for MS treatment. Of 30 neurologists invited to be part of the study, the participation rate was 83.3% (n = 25). Of the 25 participants, 14 were randomly assigned to the control group and 11 to the intervention group. TI was present in 72.0% of participants in at least one case scenario. For the primary feasibility outcome, the completion rate of the study was 100% (25/25 participants). Overall, 77.4% of participants correctly identified the "red traffic light" for clinical-scenarios with high risk of disease progression. Similarly, 86.4% of participants correctly identified the "yellow traffic light" for cases that would require a reassessment within 6-12 months. For the secondary fatigue outcome, within-group analysis showed a significant increased prevalence of TI in the second block of case-scenarios (decision fatigue) among participants randomized to the control group (TI pre-intervention 57.1% vs. TI post-intervention 71.4%; p = 0.015), but not in the active group (TI pre-intervention 54.6% vs. TI post-intervention 63.6%; p = 0.14). For the efficacy outcome, we found a non-significant reduction in TI for the targeted intervention compared to controls (22.6 vs. 33.9% post-intervention; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.26-1.22). An educational intervention applying the TLS is feasible and shows some promising results in the identification of high-risk scenarios to reduce decision fatigue and TI. Larger studies are needed to determine the efficacy of the proposed educational intervention. www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03134794.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Other 6 10%
Student > Master 5 8%
Unspecified 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 20 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 16%
Psychology 6 10%
Unspecified 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 23 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2020.
All research outputs
#5,661,440
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#3,901
of 11,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,717
of 317,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#43
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.