↓ Skip to main content

Evaluator-blinded trial evaluating nurse-led immunotherapy DEcision Coaching In persons with relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis (DECIMS) and accompanying process evaluation: study protocol for a…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 policy source


21 Dimensions

Readers on

184 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.
Evaluator-blinded trial evaluating nurse-led immunotherapy DEcision Coaching In persons with relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis (DECIMS) and accompanying process evaluation: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0611-7
Pubmed ID

Anne Christin Rahn, Sascha Köpke, Jürgen Kasper, Eik Vettorazzi, Ingrid Mühlhauser, Christoph Heesen


Multiple sclerosis is a chronic neurological condition usually starting in early adulthood and regularly leading to severe disability. Immunotherapy options are growing in number and complexity, while costs of treatments are high and adherence rates remain low. Therefore, treatment decision-making has become more complex for patients. Structured decision coaching, based on the principles of evidence-based patient information and shared decision-making, has the potential to facilitate participation of individuals in the decision-making process. This cluster randomised controlled trial follows the assumption that decision coaching by trained nurses, using evidence-based patient information and preference elicitation, will facilitate informed choices and induce higher decision quality, as well as better decisional adherence. The decision coaching programme will be evaluated through an evaluator-blinded superiority cluster randomised controlled trial, including 300 patients with suspected or definite relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, facing an immunotherapy decision. The clusters are 12 multiple sclerosis outpatient clinics in Germany. Further, the trial will be accompanied by a mixed-methods process evaluation and a cost-effectiveness study. Nurses in the intervention group will be trained in shared decision-making, coaching, and evidence-based patient information principles. Patients who meet the inclusion criteria will receive decision coaching (intervention group) with up to three face-to-face coaching sessions with a trained nurse (decision coach) or counselling as usual (control group). Patients in both groups will be given access to an evidence-based online information tool. The primary outcome is 'informed choice' after six months, assessed with the multi-dimensional measure of informed choice including the sub-dimensions risk knowledge (questionnaire), attitude concerning immunotherapy (questionnaire), and immunotherapy uptake (telephone survey). Secondary outcomes include decisional conflict, adherence to immunotherapy decisions, autonomy preference, planned behaviour, coping self-efficacy, and perceived involvement in coaching and decisional encounters. Safety outcomes are comprised of anxiety and depression and disease-specific quality of life. This trial will assess the effectiveness of a new model of patient decision support concerning MS-immunotherapy options. The delegation of treatment information provision from physicians to trained nurses bears the potential to change current doctor-focused practice in Germany. Current Controlled Trials (identifier: ISRCTN37929939 ), May 27, 2014.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 180 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 16%
Researcher 24 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Other 36 20%
Unknown 30 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 28%
Psychology 33 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 16%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 37 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 August 2020.
All research outputs
of 18,724,433 outputs
Outputs from Trials
of 4,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 280,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,724,433 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 280,610 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them