ArticlePloS one2024
Clinician's perspectives on gene therapy for Alzheimer's disease: A qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe aimed to understand clinician views regarding gene therapy as a future treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and potential barriers and facilitators to its use.
methodsWe interviewed ten clinicians who treat patients with AD. Clinicians helped design a semi-structured interview including the following domains: establishing understanding, cost/access, quality of life, and religion/spirituality. Transcripts were analyzed by a coding team using descriptive content analysis with inductive approach.
resultsClinicians identified three main areas of concern: 1) potential clinician and patient understanding of gene therapy and Alzheimer's disease 2) consideration of inequity (i.e., care access, disease awareness along with education level, family support, trust in care systems); and 3) considerations in decision-making (i.e., religious/spiritual beliefs and method of treatment delivery as a decision-making tools). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionFindings highlight areas for knowledge-building for patients and clinicians alike. Clinicians must be aware of patient/family educational needs and gaps in their own clinical knowledge before engaging patients/families with new technology. Allowing time for questions is crucial to building rapport and trust.
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.