Communicating uncertainties when disclosing diagnostic test results for (Alzheimer's) dementia in the memory clinic: The ABIDE project

Characterizing diagnostic disclosure communication strategies and challenges in dementia care: A qualitative study of interprofessional clinicians across three systems

Background: Diagnostic disclosure communication in dementia care proves challenging for clinicians and inadequately addresses patient and caregiver needs. We characterized clinician communication strategies and challenges for diagnostic disclosure conversations as an initial step in developing a structured communication intervention. Methods: Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 23 clinicians across three academic medical centers in neurology, geriatrics, geriatric psychiatry, neuropsychology, and primary care. Findings: Communicating a dementia diagnosis, because of its gravity, requires incremental communication strategies organized in the following domains. First, building and maintaining strong relationships with patients and caregivers by establishing rapport and emotional connection builds trust and creates a sense of partnership. Second, assessing illness awareness and establishing readiness to discuss diagnosis occurs over multiple visits. This involves creating psychological safety to discuss cognitive concerns, especially for individuals from racial and ethnic marginalized communities in which there is enhanced stigma. Third, clinicians tailor word choice for disclosure based on patient and caregiver needs and their own comfort. Fourth, clinicians are attuned to patient and caregiver emotions but feel varying levels of comfort responding to emotions. Fifth, approaches to sharing prognostic information include emphasis on individual variability and discussions of longer-term anticipated changes to function, although clinicians identified challenges with discussing prognosis due to uncertainty about rates of progression. Sixth, supporting hope and preparation in care planning supports patients and caregivers to adapt to the diagnosis and plan for future changes. Building relationships with caregivers and adapting communication for patients of different cultural backgrounds occurs throughout the process. Common challenges include: harm to the therapeutic relationship from 'abrupt' disclosures; limitations in patient ability to retain or accept diagnostic information; clinicians' challenges with their own emotions that arise with disclosure. Conclusion: A customized, structured communication framework and training for clinicians may enhance the quality of diagnostic disclosure conversations in dementia care.

Facing the new diagnostic and treatment options of Alzheimer's disease: The necessity of informed consent

With advances in biomarker-based detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and new treatment options with disease-modifying treatments (DMTs), we are heading toward a new conceptualization of diagnostics and therapy in the early stages of AD. Yet consensus guidelines on best clinical practices in predictive AD diagnostics are still developing. Currently, there is a knowledge gap regarding counseling and disclosure practices in early symptomatic disease stages, its implications for dementia risk estimation, and DMTs with associated risks and benefits. The crucial feature is the capacity of patients with (mild) cognitive impairment, eligible for DMTs, to consent. This perspective aims to (1) discuss the current challenges in assessing capacity to consent and (2) highlight the importance of a supported (informed) decision-making process. Measures to facilitate informed decision-making of patients constitute an ethical approach to enhancing the quality of care in this evolving therapeutic landscape. HIGHLIGHTS: This perspective: Explores biomarker-based early symptomatic AD detection and the implications for patient care. Emphasizes supported decision-making in DMTs for MCI and dementia patients. Discusses the need for standardized tools to assess the capacity to consent. Aligns diagnostic and treatment approaches with ethical care standards. Enhances patient autonomy in the evolving AD therapeutic landscape.

Predicting Cognitive Decline in Amyloid-Positive Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Mild Dementia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cognitive decline rates in Alzheimer disease (AD) vary greatly. Disease-modifying treatments may alter cognitive decline trajectories, rendering their prediction increasingly relevant. We aimed to construct clinically applicable prediction models of cognitive decline in amyloid-positive patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia.

METHODS

From the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort, we selected amyloid-positive participants with MCI or mild dementia and at least 2 longitudinal Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) measurements. Amyloid positivity was based on CSF AD biomarker concentrations or amyloid PET. We used linear mixed modeling to predict MMSE over time, describing trajectories using a cubic time curve and interactions between linear time and the baseline predictors age, sex, baseline MMSE, APOE ε4 dose, CSF β-amyloid (Aβ) 1-42 and pTau, and MRI total brain and hippocampal volume. Backward selection was used to reduce model complexity. These models can predict MMSE over follow-up or the time to an MMSE value. MCI and mild dementia were modeled separately. Internal 5-fold cross-validation was performed to calculate the explained variance (R2).

RESULTS

In total, 961 participants were included (age 65 ± 7 years, 49% female), 310 had MCI (MMSE 26 ± 2) and 651 had mild dementia (MMSE 22 ± 4), with 4 ± 2 measurements over 2 (interquartile range 1-4) years. Cognitive decline rates increased over time for both MCI and mild dementia (model comparisons linear vs squared vs cubic time fit; p < 0.05 favoring a cubic fit). For MCI, backward selection retained age, sex, and CSF Aβ1-42 and pTau concentrations as time-varying effects altering the MMSE trajectory. For mild dementia, retained time-varying effects were Aβ1-42, age, APOE ε4, and baseline MMSE. R2 was 0.15 for the MCI model and 0.26 for mild dementia in internal cross-validation. A hypothetical patient with MCI, baseline MMSE 28, and CSF Aβ1-42 of 925 pg/mL was predicted to reach an MMSE of 20 after 6.0 years (95% CI 5.4-6.7) and after 8.6 years with a hypothetical treatment reducing decline by 30%.

DISCUSSION

We constructed models for MCI and mild dementia that predict MMSE over time. These models could inform patients about their potential cognitive trajectory and the remaining uncertainty and aid in conversations about individualized potential treatment effects.

Triadic Communication in Medical Encounters Including Individuals With Dementia: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

The overall goal of this review was to identify what is known about triadic (clinician-patient-caregiver) communication in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia care settings throughout the care continuum.

METHODS

Using a structured search, we conducted a systematic scoping review of relevant published journal articles across 5 databases. Study titles/abstracts and selected full-text articles were screened by 2 investigators in Covidence systematic review software. Articles were excluded if they were not about clinical communication, focused only on caregiver-patient communication or communication in residential care, were interventional, lacked empirical data, or were not in English. Extracted data were documented using Google Forms.

RESULTS

The study team screened 3426 article titles and abstracts and 112 full-text articles. Forty-four articles were included in the final review. Results were categorized by 3 communication scenarios: diagnostic communication (n=22), general communication (n=16), and advanced care planning communication (n=6).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Across the included articles, the conceptualization and assessment of communication lacked homogeneity. Future directions include addressing these research gaps, establishing recommendations for clinicians to effectively communicate with individuals with dementia and caregivers, and creating and testing communication skills trainings for caregivers/family members, clinicians, and/or individuals with dementia to facilitate effective communication.

The expectations and experiences of patients regarding the diagnostic workup at a specialized memory clinic: An interview study

BACKGROUND

Because of the shift towards earlier diagnosis of dementia and/or Alzheimer's disease (AD), increasing numbers of individuals with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are seen in memory clinics. Yet, evidence indicates that there is room for improvement when it comes to tailoring of the diagnostic work-up to the needs of individual patients. To optimize the quality of care, we explored patients' perspectives regarding the diagnostic work-up at a specialized memory clinic.

METHODS

This interview study was conducted at Karolinska University Hospital (Sweden). The comprehensive diagnostic work-up for dementia at the memory clinic in Solna is conducted within 1 week. A sample of 15 patients (8 female; mean age = 61 years [range 50-72]; 11 SCD, 1 MCI and 3 AD dementia) was purposively selected for a series of three semistructured interviews, focussing on (1) needs and expectations (during the week of diagnostic testing), (2) experiences (within 2 weeks after test-result disclosure) and (3) reflections and evaluation (3 months after disclosure). Transcribed audio-recorded data were analyzed using thematic content analysis (using MaxQDA software).

RESULTS

Three key themes were identified: (1) the expectations and motivations of individuals for visiting the memory clinic strongly impacted their experience; (2) the diagnostic work-up impacted individuals psychosocially and (3) the diagnostic work-up provided an opportunity to motivate individuals to adopt a healthier lifestyle.

CONCLUSION

Our findings underscore the importance of enquiring about the expectations and needs of individuals referred to a specialized memory clinic, allowing for expectation management and personalization of provided information/advice, and potentially informing the selection of patients in need of a comprehensive diagnostic work-up. Structural guidance might be needed to support those with SCD and MCI to help them cope with uncertainty, potentially resolve their issues, and/or stimulate brain health.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

We gathered the perspectives of 15 individuals who had been referred to the memory clinic at three different time points through semistructured interviews, and these interviews were the primary data source.

Informing Alzheimer's Biomarker Communication: Concerns and Understanding of Cognitively Unimpaired Adults During Amyloid Results Disclosure

BACKGROUND

Biomarker results are increasingly disclosed in research and clinical settings, but less is known about how individuals interpret their results or concerns raised during the disclosure visit that may need to be addressed by clinicians to ensure appropriate disclosure.

METHODS

Fifty-two cognitively unimpaired older adults aged 65 to 89 years old from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention, who had undergone an amyloid PET scan in the previous 18 months, were enrolled in the disclosure substudy. After ensuring psychological readiness, trained study clinicians disclosed amyloid PET results using a structured protocol. We assessed participants' level of understanding, concerns, and the perceived personal significance of their biomarker results during the disclosure visit through a series of question prompts in real-time.

RESULTS

Thirty-four received a non-elevated amyloid result and 18 received an elevated result. The average age was 72.2 years (range 65-81); most were women (64%) and non-Hispanic White (92%). Participants understood their results (98%), and both non-elevated and elevated groups provided similar responses around topics of sharing with others, privacy, accuracy of testing, and risk. Participants with elevated results were significantly more likely than those with non-elevated results to want to change their lifestyle (78% vs 12%, p=<0.01) and have questions about their results (61% vs 30%, p=0.05). Participants interpreted the personal significance of results in terms of several themes relating to individual risk status, emotional impact, whether the result was expected, and prevention/planning.

CONCLUSION

Results show that participants understand their biomarker results, and have a number of concerns during the disclosure process that clinical and research protocols could address. en These findings could be important considerations as effective processes are developed for widespread biomarker disclosure in clinical and research settings.

Enhancing post-diagnostic care in Australian memory clinics: Health professionals' insights into current practices, barriers and facilitators, and desirable support

INTRODUCTION

Providing integrated and evidence-based support to individuals and families following a diagnosis of dementia is essential in order to optimise their quality of life and assist them to live well. Memory clinics provide multidisciplinary services specialising in the assessment and post-diagnostic treatment of people with dementia. This study sought to identify current practices, barriers and facilitators to provision of postdiagnostic support and to obtain health professionals' opinion of ideal post-diagnostic support to be offered in Australian memory clinics.

METHODOLOGY

This was a cross-sectional qualitative exploratory study. Data was collected from health professionals familiar with the process of diagnosis and post-diagnostic support through two expert panel meetings (n = 22). In addition, 5 focus groups (n = 22) were conducted including health professionals who are employed in Australian memory clinics. Data was collected between October 2020 and November 2021. Reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Seven themes and three subthemes were identified under the three topics: Current Practices, Barriers and Facilitators, and Desirable Support. Themes relating to Current Practices were: Tailored Communication and feedback about diagnosis; Prescription of medications and follow-up; and Referrals to health and community services. Themes relating to Barriers and Facilitators were: The structure of the current system; Lack of funding; Lack of resources; Call for government investment. Themes relating to Desirable support were: A key/single point of support; Cognitive interventions; and Counselling and education.

CONCLUSION

Post-diagnostic support in Australian memory clinics focused primarily on ensuring people understood their diagnosis, information about postdiagnostic support was provided, and dementia medications were prescribed. There were notable differences in practices in metropolitan compared to regional areas. A key concern was the need for increased funding, particularly to support the establishment of a single point of contact to facilitate continuity of care.

Communication about diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention in the memory clinic: perspectives of European memory clinic professionals

BACKGROUND

The paradigm shift towards earlier Alzheimer's disease (AD) stages and personalized medicine creates new challenges for clinician-patient communication. We conducted a survey among European memory clinic professionals to identify opinions on communication about (etiological) diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention, and inventory needs for augmenting communication skills.

METHODS

Memory clinic professionals (N = 160) from 21 European countries completed our online survey (59% female, 14 ± 10 years' experience, 73% working in an academic hospital). We inventoried (1) opinions on communication about (etiological) diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention using 11 statements; (2) current communication practices in response to five hypothetical cases (AD dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), subjective cognitive decline (SCD), with ( +) or without ( -) abnormal AD biomarkers); and (3) needs for communication support regarding ten listed communication skills.

RESULTS

The majority of professionals agreed that communication on diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention should be personalized to the individual patient. In response to the hypothetical patient cases, disease stage influenced the inclination to communicate an etiological AD diagnosis: 97% would explicitly mention the presence of AD to the patient with AD dementia, 68% would do so in MCI + , and 29% in SCD + . Furthermore, 58% would explicitly rule out AD in case of MCI - when talking to patients, and 69% in case of SCD - . Almost all professionals (79-99%) indicated discussing prognosis and prevention with all patients, of which a substantial part (48-86%) would personalize their communication to patients' diagnostic test results (39-68%) or patients' anamnestic information (33-82%). The majority of clinicians (79%) would like to use online tools, training, or both to support them in communicating with patients. Topics for which professionals desired support most were: stimulating patients' understanding of information, and communicating uncertainty, dementia risk, remotely/online, and with patients not (fluently) speaking the language of the country of residence.

CONCLUSIONS

In a survey of European memory clinic professionals, we found a strong positive attitude towards communication with patients about (etiological) diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention, and personalization of communication to characteristics and needs of individual patients. In addition, professionals expressed a need for supporting tools and skills training to further improve their communication with patients.

Required improvements for cerebrospinal fluid-based biomarker tests of Alzheimer's disease

INTRODUCTION

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers represent a well-established tool for diagnosing Alzheimer's disease (AD), independently from the clinical stage, by reflecting the presence of brain amyloidosis (A+) and tauopathy (T+). In front of this important achievement, so far, (i) CSF AD biomarkers have not yet been adopted for routine clinical use in all Centers dedicated to AD, mainly due to inter-lab variation and lack of internationally accepted cutoff values; (ii) we do need to add other biomarkers more suitable to correlate with the clinical stage and disease monitoring; (iii) we also need to detect the co-presence of other 'non-AD' pathologies.

AREAS COVERED

Efforts to establish standardized cutoff values based on large-scale multi-center studies are discussed. The influence of aging and comorbidities on CSF biomarker levels is also analyzed, and possible solutions are presented, i.e. complementing the A/T/(N) system with markers of axonal damage and synaptic derangement.

EXPERT OPINION

The first, mandatory need is to reach common cutoff values and defined (automated) methodologies for CSF AD biomarkers. To properly select subjects deserving CSF analysis, blood tests might represent the first-line approach. In those subjects undergoing CSF analysis, multiple biomarkers, able to give a comprehensive and personalized pathophysiological/prognostic information, should be included.

Motivations of patients and their care partners for visiting a memory clinic. A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

We investigated motivations of patients and care partners for their memory clinic visit, and whether these are expressed in consultations.

METHODS

We included data from 115 patients (age 71 ± 11, 49% Female) and their care partners (N = 93), who completed questionnaires after their first consultation with a clinician. Audio-recordings of these consultations were available from 105 patients. Motivations for visiting the clinic were content-coded as reported by patients in the questionnaire, and expressed by patients and care partners in consultations.

RESULTS

Most patients reported seeking a cause for symptoms (61%) or to confirm/exclude a (dementia) diagnosis (16%), yet 19% reported another motivation: (more) information, care access, or treatment/advice. In the first consultation, about half of patients (52%) and care partners (62%) did not express their motivation(s). When both expressed a motivation, these differed in about half of dyads. A quarter of patients (23%) expressed a different/complementary motivation in the consultation, then reported in the questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

Motivations for visiting a memory clinic can be specific and multifaceted, yet are often not addressed during consultations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

We should encourage clinicians, patients, and care partners to talk about motivations for visiting the memory clinic, as a starting point to personalize (diagnostic) care.

Specifics of and training needs in the inter-professional home care ofpeople with dementia

Introduction: Successful home care for people living with dementia (PLwD) allows them to live in their own home environment for as long as possible. Current findings indicate a need for further development of medical and nursing knowledge and skills in evidence-based collaborative care for these patients. Aim: To identify specifics of inter-professional care for PLwD and training needs of home care nurses and general practitioners involved in care. Method: A multi-perspective qualitative study was conducted, comprising focus groups as well as individual interviews. Focus groups and interviews followed a semi-structured topic guide. Interview data was digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim, followed by a thematic framework analysis. Results: The sample consisted of nine nurses, one medical assistant, three general practitioners and nine family caregivers of PLwD. Five themes related to inter-professional home care were inductively developed: challenges in outpatient dementia care, challenges in collaboration, insufficient healthcare infrastructure, competencies needed in dementia care, and training requirements. Challenges were a lacking flow of information as well as continuity and organization of care. Home care nurses and family caregivers complained about missing communication skills in health professionals involved in the care of PLwD. Conclusions: The interviews revealed heterogeneous training needs of home care nursing staff and general practitioners that can be addressed by an inter-professional training course.

Somewhere out there in a place no one knows: Yoko Ogawa's The Memory Police and the literature of forgetting

Yoko Ogawa's The Memory Police was published in Japanese in 1994. Since the release of its first English translation in 2019, the text has attracted a handful of responses from English literary scholars. Most of these focus on the novel's allegorical potential in relation to issues of totalitarianism and collectively enforced memory loss-as evocative, for example, of the Orwellian dystopia, or the state silencing of radiation victims in Japan. Ogawa's text depicts inhabitants of an unnamed island as they suffer a series of 'disappearances'. At the same time on arbitrary days, they forget about things like birds, hats, roses, sucking sweets and music boxes, eventually losing the ability to control various parts of their own bodies. In this world, the Memory Police are a militarised collective that remove all traces of 'disappeared objects' and ruthlessly disposes of islanders whose forgetting lapses. While my essay does not aim to displace existing readings of the text, it does suggest that these might be supplemented by a recognition of the aspects of Ogawa's writing that evoke processes of biological individual forgetting-and, more specifically, the neurodegenerative course of dementias such as Alzheimer's disease. An appreciation of the novel's fertility, I argue, might be heightened by reading The Memory Police, for example, as strangely resemblant of neurofibrillary plaques and amyloid tangles or by imagining the island itself as an image of the gradually fading Alzheimer's-infected brain. In the paper that follows, I consider The Memory Police alongside a collection of texts from what might be called a 'literature of forgetting'-Thomas DeBaggio's Losing My Mind, David Shenk's The Forgetting, Nicci Gerrard's What Dementia Teaches Us about Love and others-in an attempt to draw out some of their eerie resonances with Ogawa's island.

Ratings of the reasons for and against the disclosure of an Alzheimer's disease diagnosis: has anything changed in the past 20 years?

OBJECTIVES

The disclosure of an Alzheimer's disease diagnosis poses challenges for health care professionals, patients, and their families. Past research has shown that people favour disclosure, but it is uncertain if this situation has changed.

METHOD

We used a cross-sectional online survey to explore disclosure preferences in a sample of young adults (n = 229; 66.7% aged 18 - 25 years, 79.5% Australian born). Factors contributing to preferences were also examined (knowledge, experience, close experience, age, relationship to diagnosis recipient). Established measures were used to assess knowledge (the Alzheimer's Disease Knowledge Test) and preferences (the Reasons for Wanting to Know Questionnaire).

RESULTS

Most (95%) but not all participants favoured disclosure, whilst recognising as important at least one reason against it. Only age was a significant determinant of preferences (older people were more likely to prefer disclosure). Those against disclosure cited the fear of suicide as a key reason.

CONCLUSION

The right to know remains a primary reason for preferring disclosure. Health care professionals should use pre-diagnostic interviewing to discuss overall preference and the underpinning reasons both for and against disclosure. Focus should be on developing a person-centred approach that responds to concerns, with further research to evaluate this approach.

Clinical application of CSF biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease: From rationale to ratios

Biomarker testing is recommended for the accurate and timely diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Using illustrative case narratives we consider how cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker tests may be used in different presentations of cognitive impairment to facilitate timely and differential diagnosis, improving diagnostic accuracy, providing prognostic information, and guiding personalized management in diverse scenarios. Evidence shows that (1) CSF ratios are superior to amyloid beta (Aβ)1-42 alone; (2) concordance of CSF ratios to amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) is better than Aβ1-42 alone; and (3) phosphorylated tau (p-tau)/Aβ1-42 ratio is superior to p-tau alone. CSF biomarkers are recommended for the exclusion of AD as the underlying cause of cognitive impairment, diagnosis of AD at an early stage, differential diagnosis of AD in individuals presenting with other neuropsychiatric symptoms, accurate diagnosis of AD in an atypical presentation, and for clinical trial enrichment.

Highlights

 Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker testing may be underused outside specialist centers.CSF biomarkers improve diagnostic accuracy, guiding personalized management of AD.CSF ratios (amyloid beta [Aβ]1-42/Aβ1-40 and phosphorylated tau/Aβ1-42) perform better than single markers.CSF ratios produce fewer false-negative and false-positive results than individual markers.CSF biomarkers should be included in diagnostic work-up of AD and mild cognitive impairment due to AD.

Truth, hope and the disclosure of a dementia diagnosis: A scoping review of the ethical considerations from the perspective of the person, carer and clinician

This paper explores contemporary approaches to balancing truth with the provision of hope during the disclosure of a dementia diagnosis. We discuss the ethical significance of these practices as they relate to each member of the triad - the person, the carer and the clinician - at the point of diagnosis and beyond. The process of disclosing a diagnosis of dementia is complex. It encompasses breaking bad news while balancing hope, with truth about a progressive life-limiting condition. The process of receiving the diagnosis likewise challenges the person who may be unprepared for the diagnosis, while carers seek information and supports. The impact of receiving a diagnosis of dementia can be life-changing and harmful at the personal level - for both the person and carer. This risk of harm becomes a critical consideration for clinicians when deciding on the level of truth: what information should be relayed and to whom? That risk is also balanced against the ethical issue of patient autonomy, which includes the right to know (or not) and make informed decisions about therapeutic interventions. While the consensus is that the autonomy of the person living with dementia must be upheld, controversy exists regarding the extent to which this should occur. For instance, at diagnosis, it is common for clinicians to use euphemisms rather than the word dementia to maintain hope, even though people and carers prefer to know the diagnosis. This practice of therapeutic lying is a pervasive ethical issue in dementia care, made more acceptable by its roots in diagnosis disclosure.

Assessing the Views of Professionals, Patients, and Care Partners Concerning the Use of Computer Tools in Memory Clinics: International Survey Study

Background

Computer tools based on artificial intelligence could aid clinicians in memory clinics in several ways, such as by supporting diagnostic decision-making, web-based cognitive testing, and the communication of diagnosis and prognosis.

Objective

This study aims to identify the preferences as well as the main barriers and facilitators related to using computer tools in memory clinics for all end users, that is, clinicians, patients, and care partners.

Methods

Between July and October 2020, we sent out invitations to a web-based survey to clinicians using the European Alzheimer’s Disease Centers network and the Dutch Memory Clinic network, and 109 clinicians participated (mean age 45 years, SD 10; 53/109, 48.6% female). A second survey was created for patients and care partners. They were invited via Alzheimer Europe, Alzheimer’s Society United Kingdom, Amsterdam Dementia Cohort, and Amsterdam Aging Cohort. A total of 50 patients with subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, or dementia (mean age 73 years, SD 8; 17/34, 34% female) and 46 care partners (mean age 65 years, SD 12; 25/54, 54% female) participated in this survey.

Results

Most clinicians reported a willingness to use diagnostic (88/109, 80.7%) and prognostic (83/109, 76.1%) computer tools. User-friendliness (71/109, 65.1%); Likert scale mean 4.5, SD 0.7), and increasing diagnostic accuracy (76/109, 69.7%; mean 4.3, SD 0.7) were reported as the main factors stimulating the adoption of a tool. Tools should also save time and provide clear information on reliability and validity. Inadequate integration with electronic patient records (46/109, 42.2%; mean 3.8, SD 1.0) and fear of losing important clinical information (48/109, 44%; mean 3.7, SD 1.2) were most frequently indicated as barriers. Patients and care partners were equally positive about the use of computer tools by clinicians, both for diagnosis (69/96, 72%) and prognosis (73/96, 76%). In addition, most of them thought favorably regarding the possibility of using the tools themselves.

Conclusions

This study showed that computer tools in memory clinics are positively valued by most end users. For further development and implementation, it is essential to overcome the technical and practical barriers of a tool while paying utmost attention to its reliability and validity.

Patient and clinician experiences of uncertainty in the diagnostic process: Current understanding and future directions

OBJECTIVE

Uncertainty occurs throughout the diagnostic process and must be managed to facilitate accurate and timely diagnoses and treatments. Better characterization of uncertainty can inform strategies to manage it more effectively in clinical practice. We provide a comprehensive overview of current literature on diagnosis-related uncertainty describing (1) where patients and clinicians experience uncertainty within the diagnostic process, (2) how uncertainty affects the diagnostic process, (3) roots of uncertainty related to probability/risk, ambiguity, or complexity, and (4) strategies to manage uncertainty.

DISCUSSION

Each diagnostic process step involves uncertainty, including patient engagement with the healthcare system; information gathering, interpretation, and integration; formulating working diagnoses; and communicating diagnoses to patients. General management strategies include acknowledging uncertainty, obtaining more contextual information from patients (e.g., gathering occupations and family histories), creating diagnostic safety nets (e.g., informing patients what red flags to look for), engaging in worst case/best case scenario planning, and communicating diagnostic uncertainty to patients, families, and colleagues. Potential strategies tailored to various aspects of diagnostic uncertainty are also outlined.

CONCLUSION

Scientific knowledge on diagnostic uncertainty, while previously elusive, is now becoming more clearly defined. Next steps include research to evaluate relationships between management and communication of diagnostic uncertainty and improved patient outcomes.

Dementia risk communication. A user manual for Brain Health Services-part 3 of 6

Growing evidence suggests dementia incidence can be reduced through prevention programs targeting risk factors. To accelerate the implementation of such prevention programs, a new generation of brain health services (BHS) is envisioned, involving risk profiling, risk communication, risk reduction, and cognitive enhancement. The purpose of risk communication is to enable individuals at risk to make informed decisions and take action to protect themselves and is thus a crucial step in tailored prevention strategies of the dementia incidence. However, communicating about dementia risk is complex and challenging.In this paper, we provide an overview of (i) perspectives on communicating dementia risk from an ethical, clinical, and societal viewpoint; (ii) insights gained from memory clinical practice; (iii) available evidence on the impact of disclosing APOE and Alzheimer's disease biomarker test results gathered from clinical trials and observational studies; (iv) the value of established registries in light of BHS; and (v) practical recommendations regarding effective strategies for communicating about dementia risk.In addition, we identify challenges, i.e., the current lack of evidence on what to tell on an individual level-the actual risk-and on how to optimally communicate about dementia risk, especially concerning worried yet cognitively unimpaired individuals. Ideally, dementia risk communication strategies should maximize the desired impact of risk information on individuals' understanding of their health/disease status and risk perception and minimize potential harms. More research is thus warranted on the impact of dementia risk communication, to (1) evaluate the merits of different approaches to risk communication on outcomes in the cognitive, affective and behavioral domains, (2) develop an evidence-based, harmonized dementia risk communication protocol, and (3) develop e-tools to support and promote adherence to this protocol in BHSs.Based on the research reviewed, we recommend that dementia risk communication should be precise; include the use of absolute risks, visual displays, and time frames; based on a process of shared decision-making; and address the inherent uncertainty that comes with any probability.

Identifying relevant outcomes in the progression of Alzheimer's disease; what do patients and care partners want to know about prognosis?

BACKGROUND

Prognostic studies in the context of Alzheimer's disease (AD) mainly predicted time to dementia. However, it is questionable whether onset of dementia is the most relevant outcome along the AD disease trajectory from the perspective of patients and their care partners. Therefore, we aimed to identify the most relevant outcomes from the viewpoint of patients and care partners.

METHODS

We used a two-step, mixed-methods approach. As a first step we conducted four focus groups in the Netherlands to elicit a comprehensive list of outcomes considered important by patients (n = 12) and care partners (n = 14) in the prognosis of AD. The focus groups resulted in a list of 59 items, divided into five categories. Next, in an online European survey, we asked participants (n = 232; 99 patients, 133 care partners) to rate the importance of all 59 items (5-point Likert scale). As participants were likely to rate a large number of outcomes as "important" (4) or "very important" (5), we subsequently asked them to select the three items they considered most important.

RESULTS

The top-10 lists of items most frequently mentioned as "most important" by patients and care partners were merged into one core outcome list, comprising 13 items. Both patients and care partners selected outcomes from the category "cognition" most often, followed by items in the categories "functioning and dependency" and "physical health." No items from the category "behavior and neuropsychiatry" and "social environment" ended up in our core list of relevant outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We identified a core list of outcomes relevant to patients and care partner, and found that prognostic information related to cognitive decline, dependency, and physical health are considered most relevant by both patients and their care partners.

European Academy of Neurology/European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium position statement on diagnostic disclosure, biomarker counseling, and management of patients with mild cognitive impairment

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Careful counseling through the diagnostic process and adequate postdiagnostic support in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is important. Previous studies have indicated heterogeneity in practice and the need for guidance for clinicians.

METHODS

A joint European Academy of Neurology/European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium panel of dementia specialists was appointed. Through online meetings and emails, positions were developed regarding disclosing a syndrome diagnosis of MCI, pre- and postbiomarker sampling counseling, and postdiagnostic support.

RESULTS

Prior to diagnostic evaluation, motives and wishes of the patient should be sought. Diagnostic disclosure should be carried out by a dementia specialist taking the ethical principles of "the right to know" versus "the wish not to know" into account. Disclosure should be accompanied by written information and a follow-up plan. It should be made clear that MCI is not dementia. Prebiomarker counseling should always be carried out if biomarker sampling is considered and postbiomarker counseling if sampling is carried out. A dementia specialist knowledgeable about biomarkers should inform about pros and cons, including alternatives, to enable an autonomous and informed decision. Postbiomarker counseling will depend in part on the results of biomarkers. Follow-up should be considered for all patients with MCI and include brain-healthy advice and possibly treatment for specific underlying causes. Advice on advance directives may be relevant.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidance to clinicians on various aspects of the diagnostic process in patients with MCI is presented here as position statements. Further studies are needed to enable more evidence-based and standardized recommendations in the future.

Biomarker counseling, disclosure of diagnosis and follow-up in patients with mild cognitive impairment: A European Alzheimer's disease consortium survey

OBJECTIVES

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is associated with an increased risk of further cognitive decline, partly depending on demographics and biomarker status. The aim of the present study was to survey the clinical practices of physicians in terms of biomarker counseling, management, and follow-up in European expert centers diagnosing patients with MCI.

METHODS

An online email survey was distributed to physicians affiliated with European Alzheimer's disease Consortium centers (Northern Europe: 10 centers; Eastern and Central Europe: 9 centers; and Southern Europe: 15 centers) with questions on attitudes toward biomarkers and biomarker counseling in MCI and dementia. This included postbiomarker counseling and the process of diagnostic disclosure of MCI, as well as treatment and follow-up in MCI.

RESULTS

The response rate for the survey was 80.9% (34 of 42 centers) across 20 countries. A large majority of physicians had access to biomarkers and found them useful. Pre- and postbiomarker counseling varied across centers, as did practices for referral to support groups and advice on preventive strategies. Less than half reported discussing driving and advance care planning with patients with MCI.

CONCLUSIONS

The variability in clinical practices across centers calls for better biomarker counseling and better training to improve communication skills. Future initiatives should address the importance of communicating preventive strategies and advance planning.

Communicating uncertainties when disclosing diagnostic test results for (Alzheimer's) dementia in the memory clinic: The ABIDE project

Background

The development of novel diagnostics enables increasingly earlier diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Timely diagnosis may benefit patients by reducing their uncertainty regarding the cause of symptoms, yet does not always provide patients with the desired certainty.

Objective

To examine, using both quantitative and qualitative methods, uncertainty communicated by memory clinic clinicians in post‐diagnostic testing consultations with patients and their caregivers.

Methods

First, we identified all uncertainty expressions of 22 clinicians in audiotaped post‐diagnostic testing consultations with 78 patients. Second, we statistically explored relationships between patient/clinician characteristics and uncertainty expressions. Third, the transcribed uncertainty expressions were qualitatively analysed, determining the topic to which they pertained, their source and initiator/elicitor (clinicians/patients/caregivers).

Results

Within 57/78 (73%) consultations, clinicians expressed in total 115 uncertainties, of which 37% elicited by the patient or caregiver. No apparent relationships were found between patient/clinician characteristics and whether or not, and how often clinicians expressed uncertainty. Uncertainty expressions pertained to ten different topics, most frequently patient's diagnosis and symptom progression. Expressed uncertainty was mostly related to the unpredictability of the future and limits to available knowledge.

Discussion and conclusions

The majority of clinicians openly discussed the limits of scientific knowledge and diagnostic testing with patients and caregivers in the dementia context. Noticeably, clinicians did not discuss uncertainty in about one quarter of consultations. More evidence is needed on the beneficial and/or harmful effects on patients of discussing uncertainty with them. This knowledge can be used to support clinicians to optimally convey uncertainty and facilitate patients' uncertainty management.