BackgroundThe importance of the Internet as a medium for publishing and sharing health and medical information has increased considerably during the last decade. Nonetheless, comprehensive knowledge and information are scarce and difficult to find, especially for rare diseases. Additionally, the quality of health or medical information about rare diseases is frequently difficult to assess for the patients and their family members.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to assess the quality of information on the Internet about rare diseases. Additionally, the study aims to evaluate if the quality of information on rare diseases varies between different information supplier categories.MethodsA total of 13 quality criteria for websites providing medical information about rare diseases were transferred to a self-disclosure questionnaire. Identified providers of information on the Internet about rare diseases were invited to fill out the questionnaire. The questionnaire contained questions about the information provider in general (eg, supplier category, information category, language, use of quality certificates, and target group) and about quality aspects that reflect the 13 quality criteria. Differences in subgroup analyses were performed using t tests.ResultsWe identified 693 websites containing information about rare diseases. A total of 123 questionnaires (17.7%) were completely filled out by the information suppliers. For the remaining identified suppliers (570/693, 82.3%), the questionnaires were filled out by the authors based on the information available on their website. In many cases, the quality of websites was proportionally low. Furthermore, subgroup analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the quality of information provided by support group/patient organization compared to medical institution (P=.19). The quality of information by individuals (patient/relative) was significantly lower compared to information provided by support group/patient organization (P=.001), medical institution (P=.009), and other associations and sponsoring bodies (P=.001) as well.ConclusionsOverall, the quality of information on the Internet about rare diseases is low. Quality certificates are rarely used and important quality criteria are often not fulfilled completely. Additionally, some information categories are underrepresented (eg, information about psychosocial counseling, social-legal advice, and family planning). Nevertheless, due to the high amount of information provided by support groups, this study shows that these are extremely valuable sources of information for patients suffering from a rare disease and their relatives.

Background Many European countries have recently implemented national rare disease plans. Although the network is strengthening, especially on the macro and meso levels, patients still go a long way through healthcare systems, with many health professionals involved and scarce evidence to gather. Specifically, patient involvement in the form of shared decision-making can offer further potential to increase healthcare systems’ efficiency on a micro level. Therefore, we examine the implementation of the shared decision-making concept thus far, and explore whether efficiency potentials exist—which are particularly relevant within the rare disease field—and how they can be triggered. Methods Our empirical evidence comes from 101 interviews conducted from March to September 2014 in Germany; 55 patients, 13 family members, and 33 health professionals participated in a qualitative interview study. Transcripts were analyzed using a directed qualitative content analysis. Results The interviews indicate that the decision-making process is increasingly relevant in practice. In comparison, however, the shared decision-making agreement itself was rarely reported. A majority of interactions are dominated by individual, informed decision-making, followed by paternalistic approaches. The patient-physician relationship was characterized by a distorted trust-building process, which is affected by not only dependencies due to the diseases’ severity and chronic course, but an often-reported stigmatization of patients as stimulants. Moreover, participation was high due to a pronounced engagement of those affected, diminishing as patients’ strength vanish during their odyssey through health care systems. The particular roles of “expert patients” or “lay experts” in the rare disease field were revealed, with further potential in integrating the gathered information. Conclusions The study reveals the named efficiency potentials, which are unique for rare diseases and make the further integration of shared decision-making very attractive, facilitating diagnostics and disease management. It is noteworthy that integrating shared decision-making in the rare disease field does not only require strengthening the position of patients but also that of physicians. Efforts can be made to further integrate the concept within political frameworks to trigger the identified potential and assess the health-economic impact.

Background: this study aimed to estimate the economic impact and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) in three European countries. It was used a cross-sectional study carried out in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Data were collected from July 2015 to November 2015. Healthcare costs (hospitalizations, emergencies, medical tests, drugs used, visits to general practitioners (GPs) and specialists, medical material and healthcare transport), and non-healthcare costs (social services and informal care) were identified and valued. EuroQol instruments, the Zarit interview, and the Barthel Index were also used to reflect the burden and the social impact of the disease beyond the cost of healthcare. Results: we included 86 children with SMA, 26.7% of them had Type I, and 73.3% Type II or III. The annual average cost associated with SMA reaches €54,295 in the UK, €32,042 in France and €51,983 in Germany. The direct non-healthcare costs ranged between 79–86% of the total cost and the informal care costs were the main component of these costs. Additionally, people suffering from this disease have a very low health-related quality of life, and there are large differences between countries. Conclusions: SMA has a high socioeconomic impact in terms of healthcare and social costs. It was also observed that the HRQOL of affected children was extremely reduced. The figures shown in this study may help to design more efficient and equitable policies, with special emphasis on the support provided to the families or on non-healthcare aid.

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is one of the most common severe hereditary diseases of infancy and early childhood. The progression of this illness causes a high degree of disability; hence, a significant burden is experienced by individuals with this disease and their families. We analyzed the time taken to care for patients suffering from SMA in European countries and the burden on their informal caregivers. We designed a cross-sectional study recording data from France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom. The primary caregivers completed a self-administered questionnaire that included questions about the time of care, The Zarit Burden Interview, type of SMA and socio-demographic characteristics. Multivariate analyses were used to study the associations between the type of SMA, time of care and burden supported by informal caregivers. The caregivers provided 10.0 h (SD = 6.7) per day of care (the principal caregivers provided 6.9 h, SD = 4.6). The informal caregivers of patients with type I SMA had a 36.3 point higher likelihood (p < 0.05) of providing more than 10 h of care per day in comparison with caregivers of patients with type III SMA. The severity of the disease was associated with more time of care and a higher burden on the caregivers.

BackgroundDespite diverging definitions on rare conditions, people suffering from rare diseases share similar difficulties. A lack of experience by health professionals, a long wait from first symptoms to diagnosis, scarce medical and scientific knowledge, and unsatisfactory treatment options all trigger the search for health information by patients, family members, and physicians. Examining and systematically integrating stakeholder needs can help design information platforms that effectively support this search.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to innovate on the group decision-making process involving patients, family members, and physicians for the establishment of a national rare disease Internet platform. We determined differences in the relevance of health information—especially examining quantifiable preference weights—between these subgroups and elucidated the structure and distribution of these differences in people suffering from rare diseases, their family members, and physicians, thus providing information crucial to their collaboration.MethodsThe included items were identified using a systematic Internet research and verified through a qualitative interview study. The identified major information needs included medical issues, research, social help offers, and current events. These categories further comprised sublevels of diagnosis, therapy, general disease pattern, current studies, study results, registers, psychosocial counseling, self-help, and sociolegal advice. The analytic hierarchy process was selected as the group decision-making tool. A sensitivity analysis was used to determine the stability and distribution of results. t tests were utilized to examine the results’ significance.ResultsA total of 176 questionnaires were collected; we excluded some questionnaires in line with our chosen consistency level of 0.2. Ultimately, 120 patients, 24 family members, and 32 physicians participated in the study (48 men and 128 women, mean age=48 years, age range=17-87 years). Rankings and preference weights were highly heterogeneous. Global ranking positions of patients, family members, and physicians are shown in parentheses, as follows: medical issues (3/4, 4, 4), research (3/4, 2/3, 3), social help offers (1, 2/3, 2), and current events (2, 1, 1); diagnosis (6, 8, 9), therapy (5, 9, 7), general disease pattern (9, 4/5/6, 6), current studies (7, 4/5/6, 3), study results (8, 7, 8), registers (4, 1, 5), psychosocial counseling (1, 2, 4), self-help (3, 3, 2), and sociolegal advice (2, 4/5/6, 1). Differences were verified for patients for 5 information categories (P=.03), physicians for 6 information categories (P=.03), and family members for 4 information categories (P=.04).ConclusionsOur results offer a clear-cut information structure that can transparently translate group decisions into practice. Furthermore, we found different preference structures for rare disease information among patients, family members, and physicians. Some websites already address differences in comprehension between those sub...