Evidence mapPaperPMID 40802128Full record

ArticleNeurology and therapy2025

Treatment Adherence in MS: Does Objective MS Knowledge and MS Risk Knowledge Matter in Relation to Perceived Disease-Modifying Therapy Benefits?

Edward Smith, Dawn Langdon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Edward SmithDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK. edward.smith4@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1055-2947
Dawn LangdonDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1128-7417

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in managing MS has been established, although adherence is commonly difficult to achieve, which can undermine health outcomes. People with MS (pwMS) who perceive greater benefits from DMTs are more likely to report being adherent. This pilot study investigated the extent to which knowledge of MS and its risks contributes to this relationship. Knowledge is modifiable and may enhance adherence.

methodsSixty-three pwMS were recruited through MS charity webpages and social media to take part in an anonymous online survey including validated measures of perceived adherence benefits, perceived MS susceptibility, MS knowledge, MS risk knowledge and self-reported treatment adherence.

resultsIn a hierarchical regression, greater perceived treatment adherence benefit was significantly associated with higher levels of self-reported adherence (B = 0.20, β = 0.27, t(59) = 2.16, p = 0.04). Interestingly, adding objective measures of MS knowledge F(2,61) = 0.96, p = 0.33) and subsequently MS risk knowledge (F(3,59) = 2.29, p = 0.14) did not significantly change variance in self-reported adherence.

conclusionAn individual's subjective evaluation of DMT benefits seems to be a key driver in treatment adherence, possibly reflecting the individual and cultural context. Interventions which centre on patient perceived benefit may be more effective in supporting adherence.

Indexed as

Multiple sclerosisMultiple sclerosis knowledgeMultiple sclerosis risk knowledgeTreatment adherence

Identifiers

PMID40802128
PMCPMC12450202

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.