Search

Summary: Background: People with complex symptomatology but unclear diagnosis presenting to a centre for rare diseases (CRD) may present with mental (co-)morbidity. We hypothesised that combining an expert in somatic medicine with a mental health specialist working in tandem will improve the diagnostic outcome. Methods: Patients aged 12 years and older who presented to one of the 11 participating German CRDs with an unknown diagnosis were recruited into this prospective cohort trial with a two-phase cohort design. From October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019, participants were allocated to standard care (SC, N = 684), and from October 1, 2019 to January 31, 2021 to innovative care (IC, N = 695). The cohorts consisted mainly of adult participants with only a minority of children included (N = 67). IC included the involvement of a mental health specialist in all aspects of care (e.g., assessing medical records, clinic visits, telehealth care, and case conferences). Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03563677. Findings: The proportion of patients with diagnoses established within 12 months after the first visit to the CRD explaining the entire symptomatology (primary outcome) was 19% (N = 131 of 672) in the SC and 42% (N = 286 of 686) in the IC cohort (OR adjusted for centre effects 3.45 [95% CrI: 1.99–5.65]). The difference was mainly due to a higher prevalence of mental disorders and non-rare somatic diseases in the IC cohort. The median time to explaining diagnoses was one month shorter with IC (95% CrI: 1–2), and significantly more patients could be referred to local regular care in the IC (27.5%; N = 181 of 659) compared to the SC (12.3%; N = 81 of 658) cohort (OR adjusted for centre effects 2.70 [95% CrI: 2.02–3.60]). At 12-month follow-up, patient satisfaction with care was significantly higher in the IC compared to the SC cohort, while quality of life was not different between cohorts. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that including a mental health specialist in the entire evaluation process of CRDs for undiagnosed adolescents and adults should become an integral part of the assessment of individuals with a suspected rare disease. Funding: The study was funded by the Global Innovation Fund from the Joint Federal Committee in Germany (Innovationsfonds des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses), grant number 01NVF17031.

Abstract Objectives Focus groups used for data collection in health research are increasingly conducted online. In two multi-center health research projects, we applied available methodological instructions for synchronous online focus groups (SOFGs). We describe necessary changes and specifications regarding the planning (recruitment, technology, ethics, appointments) and conduct (group composition, moderation, interaction, didactics) to enhance knowledge about the planning and conduct of SOFGs. Results Recruiting online proved to be challenging and necessitated direct and analogue recruiting, too. To ensure participation, less digital and more individual formats may be offered, e.g. telephone calls. Explaining verbally the specifics of data protection and anonymity in an online setting can foster participants’ confidence to actively engage in the discussion. Two moderators, one moderating, one supporting technically, are advisable in SOFGs, however, due to limited nonverbal communication, roles and tasks need to be defined beforehand. Participant interaction is central to focus groups in general, but sometimes difficult to achieve online. Hence, smaller group size, sharing of personal information and moderators increased attention to individual reactions appeared helpful. Lastly, digital tools such as surveys and breakout rooms should be used with caution, as they easily inhibit interaction.

Abstract Background In individuals suffering from a rare disease the diagnostic process and the confirmation of a final diagnosis often extends over many years. Factors contributing to delayed diagnosis include health care professionals' limited knowledge of rare diseases and frequent (co-)occurrence of mental disorders that may complicate and delay the diagnostic process. The ZSE-DUO study aims to assess the benefits of a combination of a physician focusing on somatic aspects with a mental health expert working side by side as a tandem in the diagnostic process. Study design This multi-center, prospective controlled study has a two-phase cohort design. Methods Two cohorts of 682 patients each are sequentially recruited from 11 university-based German Centers for Rare Diseases (CRD): the standard care cohort (control, somatic expertise only) and the innovative care cohort (experimental, combined somatic and mental health expertise). Individuals aged 12 years and older presenting with symptoms and signs which are not explained by current diagnoses will be included. Data will be collected prior to the first visit to the CRD’s outpatient clinic (T0), at the first visit (T1) and 12 months thereafter (T2). Outcomes Primary outcome is the percentage of patients with one or more confirmed diagnoses covering the symptomatic spectrum presented. Sample size is calculated to detect a 10 percent increase from 30% in standard care to 40% in the innovative dual expert cohort. Secondary outcomes are (a) time to diagnosis/diagnoses explaining the symptomatology; (b) proportion of patients successfully referred from CRD to standard care; (c) costs of diagnosis including incremental cost effectiveness ratios; (d) predictive value of screening instruments administered at T0 to identify patients with mental disorders; (e) patients’ quality of life and evaluation of care; and f) physicians’ satisfaction with the innovative care approach. Conclusions This is the first multi-center study to investigate the effects of a mental health specialist working in tandem with a somatic expert physician in CRDs. If this innovative approach proves successful, it will be made available on a larger scale nationally and promoted internationally. In the best case, ZSE-DUO can significantly shorten the time to diagnosis for a suspected rare disease. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT03563677; First posted: June 20, 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03563677 .

Background Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common autoimmune inflammatory disease of the central nervous system in Europe, often causing severe physical, cognitive and emotional impairments. Currently, it is unclear whether the healthcare provisions of people with MS (PwMS) are in line with the recommendations for treatment based on guidelines or patients’ needs. The main objectives of the study are as follows: (a) to investigate how well PwMS are treated; and (b) to develop a needs-oriented, patient-centred care model. Methods This mixed-methods study focuses on adult PwMS living in Lower Saxony, a federal state in Germany. The qualitative study comprises focus groups with PwMS, physicians and people involved in the healthcare process as well as a future workshop. The quantitative study comprises a cross-sectional online survey and addresses the patient-relevant outcomes and needs, as previously determined by literature searches and focus groups. It will be administered to all PwMS who are insured by the statutory health insurance company involved in the project (n~7,000). The survey data will be linked to the longitudinal secondary data from the statutory health insurance company and data from the German MS registry where available. The linked and single data sources will be statistically analysed. Discussion By comprehensively comparing the current healthcare provisions with the needs and requirements of PwMS, the strengths and weaknesses of the overall healthcare process and provision of assistive devices can be identified. The barriers and facilitators of the health service providers and their impact on daily life will be explored (qualitative analyses). Reliable recommendations for improvements will be given based on a study population drawn from the largest statutory health insurance company in Lower Saxony (quantitative analyses). However, the inherent advantages and limitations of the qualitative and quantitative research approaches need to be considered. Trial registration The study is registered at German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00021741.