Shaping an Effective Health Information Website on Rare Diseases Using a Group Decision-Making Tool: Inclusion of the Perspectives of Patients, Their Family Members, and Physicians

Abstract

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...

Outcomes of patient self-referral for the diagnosis of several rare inherited kidney diseases

“…Finding accurate information on the Internet is especially problematic for rare diseases, as approximately 50% of these disorders do not have a foundation providing specific patient information. 1 Despite studies showing frequent use of the Internet by parents of children with rare conditions [27][28][29][30][31][32], one study reviewing 693 websites about rare diseases found that in general the quality of information provided was poor [33]. Our results only describe outcomes that may occur when patients are provided with accurate information, personal contact, and a path to achieving diagnosis.…”

How many zebras are there, and where are they hiding in medical literature? A literature review of publications on rare diseases

“…In the rare disease arena, PACs often become experts in their particular disease out of necessity [15,17,19]. Being patients themselves or in the front lines of patient care, they experience heavy disease, emotional, and financial burdens due to the gravity of the disease and the complexity of the associated care [15].…”

“…Primary care physicians (PCPs) are typically trained for and are familiar with approximately 400 different diseases that present most often in their environment [15]. Since PCPs are usually the first to be consulted by patients and caregivers, they need to be able to recognize the early symptoms of rare, often progressive, diseases.…”

“…Their educational updates typically focus on the diseases they treat most often. By contrast, in the arena of rare diseases, patients, advocates, and caregivers (PACs) are sometimes considered experts in their conditions due to the extensive reading and research they undertake in the absence of other informed medical support [15,17]. Unfortunately, most of the information PACs obtain is from the internet where there is little or no quality control [18].…”

Clinical utility in infants with suspected monogenic conditions through next‐generation sequencing

“…Rare diseases are typically severe, mostly genetic in origin, and the majority of cases are reported in patients with very early onset (Luzzatto et al, ). Therefore, efforts have been made continuously to identify the causative mutations for these infantile‐onset rare Mendelian diseases (Bacchelli & Williams, ), which is of great importance for patient management (Silibello et al, ) and family counseling (Babac, ).…”