ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease reports
Qualitative insights into participant and care partner perspectives on research-based Alzheimer's disease biomarker testing and disclosure.
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: There is strong desire for the return of individual results, including biomarker testing, among participants in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) studies. However, it is not known whether participants accurately understand the utility, limitations, benefits and risks of biomarker disclosure, nor how they weigh these factors to inform their decision to undergo testing and learn results. Furthermore, little is known about how factors like participant race or diagnosis influence a desire to learn biomarker results. Objective: This mixed-methods study explored how clinically and racially diverse participant-care partner dyads perceive and plan to use AD biomarker testing in the context of research studies. Methods: 57 participants (Age: Results: Responses suggested strong interest in learning results, driven by perceived benefits (e.g., informing treatment, lifestyle changes, and social support). Risks were rarely discussed, though some respondents cited concerns about psychological burdens of a positive result. Few nuanced differences in perceived risks or benefits were observed across race and diagnosis. Conclusions: The decision to learn the results of biomarker testing is motivated by highly varied perceived benefits and minimal consideration of risks. Testing should be preceded by individualized counseling that carefully reviews potential benefits and risks.
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.