May 29, 2015
2 min read
Save

Web-based information template better informs patients with allergies about immunotherapy

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

After looking at an Internet-based information template about allergies and allergen immunotherapy, participants felt better informed about the process and were more likely to either initiate or complete the therapy, according to study results.

"The results of the present Internet-based survey show clearly that the participants were either not optimally informed about allergic disease and [allergen immunotherapy] by their physician, or had forgotten some of the key information given since their consultation with the physician,” Moises A. Calderon, MD, PhD, director of the Clinical Trials Group, Allergy and Clinical Immunology Division at Imperial College London, and colleagues wrote.

Calderon and colleagues conducted an observational, Internet-based survey of 261 participants from France, Germany, Russia, Spain and the U.S. to validate a new communication template and to assess its impact on the possible willingness to initiate or resume allergen immunotherapy.

The goal of the information template, as the researchers wrote, was to summarize the characteristics of allergic disease and the features of allergen immunotherapy in lay terms.

The researchers either listed participants as non-starters (n = 134), meaning they never began therapy after physician recommendation, or early abandoners (n = 127), meaning they initially started therapy but stopped after several months.

Participants who started but stopped therapy, primarily stopped because of insufficient perceived efficacy (39%) as well as financial expense (39%). Those who never started therapy did so primarily because financial expense (34%) and insufficient perceived benefits (25%).

Only 34% of participants could recall being told by a physician about the overall duration of the therapy and only 66% could recall being informed about safety.

When the information template was presented to participants, 92% labeled it as clear, 75% as convincing and 89% reassuring. Eighty percent also reported they felt better informed about the process when compared with physician recommendation.

Fifty-seven percent of the participants believed information in the template was not included in the physician’s presentation.

The researchers note physicians should be more proactive and monitor changes over time in efficacy and outcomes of allergen immunotherapy to improve levels of dialogue and boost the patient’s motivation.

However, the researchers did acknowledge there were some limitations to the study including recall bias.

“The survey may have suffered from recall bias, since the participants were questioned up to 12 months after the consultation which [allergen immunotherapy] was recommended,” the researchers wrote. “It is possible that participants had been well informed at the consultation but had since forgotten part of the information; this may have artificially improved the participants’ perception of the new communication template.” – by Ryan McDonald

Disclosure: Calderon reports receiving consulting fees, Honoria for lectures and research funding from Allergopharma, ALK, HAL, Merck and Stallergenes. Please see the full study for a list of all other authors’ relevant financial disclosures.