Research Participants' Perspectives on Precision Diagnostics for Alzheimer's Disease.

Alzheimer’s disease genetic testing neuroimaging surveys and questionnaires

Journal

Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD
ISSN: 1875-8908
Titre abrégé: J Alzheimers Dis
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9814863

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 Jan 2024
Historique:
medline: 22 1 2024
pubmed: 22 1 2024
entrez: 22 1 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Understanding research participants' responses to learning Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk information is important to inform clinical implementation of precision diagnostics given rapid advances in disease modifying therapies. We assessed participants' perspectives on the meaning of their amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging results for their health, self-efficacy to understand their results, psychological impact of learning their results, experience receiving their results from the clinical team, and interest in genetic testing for AD risk. We surveyed individuals who were being clinically evaluated for AD and received PET imaging six weeks after the return of results. We analyzed responses to close-ended survey items by PET result using Fisher's exact test and qualitatively coded open-ended responses. A total of 88 participants completed surveys, most of whom had mild cognitive impairment due to AD (38.6%), AD (28.4%), or were cognitively unimpaired (21.6%). Participants subjectively understood their results (25.3% strongly agreed, 41.8% agreed), which could help them plan (16.5% strongly agreed, 49.4% agreed). Participants with a negative PET result (n = 25) reported feelings of relief (Fisher's exact p <  0.001) and happiness (p <  0.001) more frequently than those with a positive result. Most participants felt that they were treated respectfully and were comfortable voicing concerns during the disclosure process. Genetic testing was anticipated to be useful for medical care decisions (48.2%) and to inform family members about AD risk (42.9%). Participants had high subjective understanding and self-efficacy around their PET results and did not experience negative psychological effects. Interest in genetic testing was high.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Understanding research participants' responses to learning Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk information is important to inform clinical implementation of precision diagnostics given rapid advances in disease modifying therapies.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
We assessed participants' perspectives on the meaning of their amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging results for their health, self-efficacy to understand their results, psychological impact of learning their results, experience receiving their results from the clinical team, and interest in genetic testing for AD risk.
METHODS METHODS
We surveyed individuals who were being clinically evaluated for AD and received PET imaging six weeks after the return of results. We analyzed responses to close-ended survey items by PET result using Fisher's exact test and qualitatively coded open-ended responses.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 88 participants completed surveys, most of whom had mild cognitive impairment due to AD (38.6%), AD (28.4%), or were cognitively unimpaired (21.6%). Participants subjectively understood their results (25.3% strongly agreed, 41.8% agreed), which could help them plan (16.5% strongly agreed, 49.4% agreed). Participants with a negative PET result (n = 25) reported feelings of relief (Fisher's exact p <  0.001) and happiness (p <  0.001) more frequently than those with a positive result. Most participants felt that they were treated respectfully and were comfortable voicing concerns during the disclosure process. Genetic testing was anticipated to be useful for medical care decisions (48.2%) and to inform family members about AD risk (42.9%).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Participants had high subjective understanding and self-efficacy around their PET results and did not experience negative psychological effects. Interest in genetic testing was high.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38250770
pii: JAD230609
doi: 10.3233/JAD-230609
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Auteurs

Hadley Stevens Smith (HS)

Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Jill O Robinson (JO)

Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

Ariel Levchenko (A)

Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

Stacey Pereira (S)

Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

Belen Pascual (B)

Nantz National Alzheimer Center, Department of Neurology, Houston Methodist, Houston, TX, USA.

Kathleen Bradbury (K)

Nantz National Alzheimer Center, Department of Neurology, Houston Methodist, Houston, TX, USA.

Victoria Arbones (V)

Nantz National Alzheimer Center, Department of Neurology, Houston Methodist, Houston, TX, USA.

Jamie Fong (J)

Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

Joshua M Shulman (JM)

Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Center for Alzheimer's and Neurodegenerative Diseases, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Department of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Jan and Dan Duncan Neurological Research Institute, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.

Amy L McGuire (AL)

Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

Joseph Masdeu (J)

Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

Classifications MeSH