ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)
Characterizing clinician communication with patients about lecanemab: A qualitative study of clinicians across seven academic medical centers.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Just Semantics? How Diagnostic Criteria Influence Physician-Patient Narratives in Alzheimer's Disease.Neuro-degenerative diseases · 2026Article
- A qualitative study investigating clinician experiences with lecanemab implementation across seven academic medical centers.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2026Article
- Characterizing clinician communication with patients about lecanemab: A qualitative study of clinicians across seven academic medical centers.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
introductionAnti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) slow cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease but may cause amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), which can rarely be disabling or fatal. This qualitative study investigates how clinicians communicate the benefits and risks of mAbs to patients and caregivers.
methodsSemi-structured interviews with clinicians who prescribe mAbs at seven academic medical centers. Hybrid inductive-deductive thematic analysis by interdisciplinary researchers.
resultsIn 27 clinician interviews (women [ DISCUSSION: Preliminary insights about how clinicians communicate tradeoffs can guide future shared decision-making interventions for mAbs. Highlights: This qualitative study among 27 clinicians across seven academic medical centers examined how clinicians communicate with people with Alzheimer's disease about risks and benefits of anti-amyloid therapy, which can influence treatment decisions.Clinicians varied in what techniques they employed and how they portrayed risks and benefits, and whether they incorporated patients' values.They cited comorbidities, eligibility criteria fit, and degree of social support or family involvement in decisions as factors used in framing discussions, while fewer used patients' goals to guide discussion.The professional training, individual practice style, and personal sense of ambivalence of clinicians shaped conversations.These findings can guide future interventions to improve communication and shared decision-making.
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.