General neurologist and subspecialist care for multiple sclerosis
Authors:
- Z.V. EdmondsZEZ.V. Edmonds
- D. ShatinDSD. Shatin
- M.F. ShapiroMSM.F. Shapiro
- S. DelrahimSDS. Delrahim
- T.R. BelinTBT.R. Belin
- G.W. EllisonGEG.W. Ellison
- L.W. MyersLML.W. Myers
- 1 October 1999
- journal article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Neurology
- Vol. 53 (6) , 1190
Abstract
Objective: To compare general neurologists and MS specialists on patients’ clinical characteristics and MS care as perceived by patients with MS. Methods: We sampled all adult patients with MS having physician visits over a 2-year period from a Midwestern managed-care organization and from the fee-for-service portion of 23 randomly selected California neurologists’ practices. In mid-1996, 694 subjects were mailed questionnaires; 532 (77%) responded. Sociodemographic/clinical characteristics, recent utilization of services/treatments, unmet needs, symptom care, and research participation were measured. Of 502 subjects (94%) who indicated their usual physician providing MS care was a neurologist, 217 (43%) reported having a general neurologist and 285 (57%) reported having an MS specialist. Comparisons between these two groups were adjusted for comorbidity and disease severity. Results: General neurologist and MS specialist patient groups did not differ on any sociodemographic or clinical characteristic except age (p < 0.05). Although health care utilization generally was similar, higher proportions of the MS specialist group were aware of or had discussed interferon beta-1b (IFNβ-1b) with their physician (p < 0.05) and were currently taking it (p < 0.05); a smaller proportion of the MS specialist group reported stopping it because of side effects (p < 0.01). Overall, levels of unmet need and care for recent symptoms were similar, but the MS specialist group reported more confidence in their physician/carefulness in listening (p < 0.05). Twice as many MS specialist subjects had participated in nondrug research (p < 0.05); drug study participation was similar. Conclusions: Patients’ perceptions of their care were similar in most ways for those who designated their main MS provider as a general neurologist compared to an MS specialist; however, care differed in potentially important areas. Prospective, longitudinal studies are needed to measure and relate neurologists’ training, experience, knowledge, and MS patient volume with both process and outcome measures of quality of MS care.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Physicians' Experience with the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome as a Factor in Patients' SurvivalNew England Journal of Medicine, 1996
- The Outcomes and Costs of Care for Acute Low Back Pain among Patients Seen by Primary Care Practitioners, Chiropractors, and Orthopedic SurgeonsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1995
- A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosisQuality of Life Research, 1995
- Functioning and Well-being Outcomes of Patients With Depression Compared With Chronic General Medical IllnessesArchives of General Psychiatry, 1995
- Ability To Obtain Health Care: Recent Estimates From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation National Access to Care SurveyHealth Affairs, 1995
- Practice advisory on selection of patients with multiple sclerosis for treatment with Betaseron [RETIRED]Neurology, 1994
- What people with epilepsy want from a hospital clinicSeizure: European Journal of Epilepsy, 1993
- Variations in Resource Utilization Among Medical Specialties and Systems of CareJAMA, 1992
- A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validationJournal of Chronic Diseases, 1987
- Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosisNeurology, 1983