ArticleThe journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease2024
Alzheimer's Disease Biomarker Decision-Making among Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Their Care Partners.
Article in The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Yoga an integrated mind body intervention for improvement in quality of life in individuals with Alzheimer's disease and their caregivers.Frontiers in aging · 2025Article
- Counseling and disclosure practices in predictive Alzheimer's disease diagnostics: A scoping review.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024Article
- The utility of recruitment incentives in early Alzheimer's disease trials.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024Article
- Short-term psychological impacts of Alzheimer's disease risk disclosure based on blood-biomarker results.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker tests can be ordered as part of the diagnostic workup of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Little is known about how patients with MCI and their care partners decide whether to pursue testing.
objectiveTo examine factors that influence AD biomarker testing decisions among patients with MCI and their care partners.
designWe performed structured research interviews with patients with MCI and their study partners to assess the importance of eight factors in the decision whether to undergo AD biomarker testing (6-point Likert scale; 1-extremely unimportant to 6-extremely important): cost, fear of testing procedures, learning if AD is the cause of cognitive problems, concern about health insurance, instructing future planning, informing treatment decisions, family members' opinions, and doctor recommendation.
settingTwo researchers administered interviews with participants in-person (i.e., participant home, research center) or remotely (i.e., telephone, video-conference).
participantsWe completed interviews with 65 patients with a diagnosis of MCI and 57 study partners, referred by dementia specialist clinicians from the University of California, Irvine health system. MEASUREMENTS: We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to examine the mean importance of each factor among patients and study partners, and the mean difference in importance of each factor within dyads.
resultsOne third of participants reported the patient had previously undergone AD biomarker testing. Fifty-five percent of patients and 65% of study partners who reported no previous testing indicated a desire for the patient to be tested. GEE analyses found that patients and study partners rated the following factors with highest importance: informing treatment decisions (mean score 5.29, 95% CI: 5.06, 5.52 for patients; mean score 5.56, 95% CI: 5.41, 5.72 for partners); doctor recommendation (4.94, 95% CI: 4.73, 5.15 for patients; 5.16, 95% CI: 4.97, 5.34 for partners); and instructing future planning (4.88, 95% CI: 4.59, 5.16 for patients; 5.11, 95% CI: 4.86, 5.35 for partners). High dyadic agreement was observed for all factors except fear of testing, which patients rated with lower importance than their study partners.
conclusionsBiomarker testing for AD in patients with MCI is a rapidly evolving practice and limited data exist on patient perspectives. In this study, most patients and their care partners were interested in testing to help inform treatment decisions and to plan for the future. Participants placed high importance on clinician recommendations for biomarker testing, highlighting the need for clear communication and education on the options, limitations, risks, and benefits of testing.
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.