ArticleSociology of health & illness2021
Ambivalent anticipation: How people with Alzheimer's disease value diagnosis in current and envisioned future practices.
Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Considerations regarding a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease before dementia: a systematic review.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2022Pooled it
- Recommended approaches to sharing individual research results in Alzheimer's disease research: A multidisciplinary expert Delphi consensus.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2025Article
- Detecting Cognitive Impairment and Dementia in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2022Article
- Succinimide Derivatives as Antioxidant Anticholinesterases, Anti-Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the bioactive components of "ginseng-polygala" drug pair against PC12 cell injury based on UHPLC-QTOF-MS and HPLC.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emergent biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are expected to provide earlier and more precise diagnoses. However, even if biomarkers live up to these expectations, it cannot be taken for granted that patients actually would value an earlier and more precise AD diagnosis. Based on an interview study, we aim to give more insight into the value of an AD diagnosis for patients, in existing as well as future practices, by describing how a diagnosis enables or may enable knowing, foreseeing, and acting in relation to one's illness. Our findings show that how people with AD value a diagnosis is not only characterised by great variety, as previous studies have shown, but also by profound ambivalence for the individual. With lack of treatment and poor prognostics as the status quo, this ambivalence and the way people deal with it are particularly linked to the far-from-straightforward capacity of an AD diagnosis to support anticipation of the future. We argue that in otherwise unchanged practices the envisioned future biomarker-based diagnostics are unlikely to reduce the ambivalence about receiving an AD diagnosis and, in particular, the challenges of anticipation that it entails. Rather, biomarker-based innovations may even reinforce some of the main issues involved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.