Impact of sharing Alzheimer's disease biomarkers with individuals without dementia:A systematic review and meta-analysis of empirical data

Introduction: We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of empirical evidence on expected and experienced implications of sharing Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker results with individuals without dementia. Methods: PubMed, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results from included studies were synthesized, and quantitative data on psychosocial impact were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. Results: We included 35 publications. Most personal stakeholders expressed interest in biomarker assessment. Learning negative biomarker results led to relief and sometimes frustration, while positive biomarkers induced anxiety but also clarity. Meta-analysis of five studies including 2012 participants (elevated amyloid = 1324 [66%], asymptomatic = 1855 [92%]) showed short-term psychological impact was not significant (random-effect estimate = 0.10, standard error = 0.23, P = 0.65). Most professional stakeholders valued biomarker testing, although attitudes and practices varied considerably. Discussion: Interest in AD biomarker testing was high and sharing their results did not cause psychological harm. Highlights: Most personal stakeholders expressed interest in Alzheimer's disease biomarker assessment. Personal motivations included gaining insight, improving lifestyle, or preparing for the future. There was no short-term psychological impact of sharing biomarker status, implying it can be safe. Most professional stakeholders valued biomarker testing, believing the benefits outweigh the risk. Harmonized guidelines on biomarker testing and sharing results are required.</p

Giving meaning to the scores of the Amsterdam instrumental activities of daily living questionnaire: a qualitative study

Background: Everyday functioning is a clinically relevant concept in dementia, yet little is known about the clinical meaningfulness of scores on functional outcome measures. We aimed to establish clinically meaningful scoring categories for the Amsterdam Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire (A-IADL-Q), representing no, mild, moderate and severe problems in daily functioning. Methods: Informal caregivers (n = 6) of memory-clinic patients and clinicians (n = 13), including neurologists and nurse specialists, working at various memory clinics in The Netherlands. In focus groups, participants individually ranked nine summaries of fictional patients from least to most impairment in daily functioning. Then, they placed bookmarks to demarcate the thresholds for mild, moderate and severe problems. Individual bookmark placements were then discussed to reach consensus. Clinicians completed a survey in which they placed bookmarks, individually. Results: While individual categorizations varied somewhat, caregivers and clinicians generally agreed on the thresholds, particularly about the distinction between ‘no’ and ‘mild’ problems. Score categories were no problems (T-score ≥ 60), mild problems (T-score 50–59), moderate problems (T-score 40–49), and severe problems in daily functioning (T-score < 40), on a scale ranging 20–80. Conclusions: Our findings provide categories for determining the level of functional impairment, which can facilitate interpretation of A-IADL-Q scores. These categories can subsequently be used by clinicians to improve communication with patients and caregivers

Communication skills training for healthcare professionals in oncology over the past decade: a systematic review of reviews

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Effective communication in cancer care requires complex communication skills of healthcare professionals (HCPs), which can be advanced by communication skills training (CST). The number of empirical studies on CST has grown steadily over the last decade. However, controversies on CST abound. The aim of this review of reviews is to summarize evidence for the effectiveness of CST in oncology as well as for effective CST features (intensity, format and content) and to synthesize the current opinion on CST. RECENT FINDINGS: The evidence synthesized from multiple reviews supported the effect of CST on HCPs' communication skills. Yet, the certainty of evidence was limited as studies were diverse and effects heterogeneous. Furthermore, limited evidence was found for effective CST intensity, format and content. Authors of the reviews advocated further high-quality research with robust outcome measurement to establish the most essential features of CST and recommended implementation of CST in the standard training of HCPs with continuous supervision. SUMMARY: CST can probably improve some aspects of HCPs' communication skills. Despite the uncertain evidence, implementation of CST into clinical practice is widely advocated and specific recommendations regarding intensity and format are provided. Evidence to justify and substantiate implementation efforts is needed

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

Everyday Functioning in a Community-Based Volunteer Population: Differences Between Participant- and Study Partner-Report

Introduction: Impaired awareness in dementia caused by Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders made study partner-report the preferred method of measuring interference in “instrumental activities of daily living” (IADL). However, with a shifting focus toward earlier disease stages and prevention, the question arises whether self-report might be equally or even more appropriate. The aim of this study was to investigate how participant- and study partner-report IADL perform in a community-based volunteer population without dementia and which factors relate to differences between participant- and study partner-report. Methods: Participants (N = 3,288; 18–97 years, 70.4% females) and their study partners (N = 1,213; 18–88 years, 45.8% females) were recruited from the Dutch Brain Research Registry. IADL were measured using the Amsterdam IADL Questionnaire. The concordance between participant- and study partner-reported IADL difficulties was examined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Multinomial logistic regressions were used to investigate which demographic, cognitive, and psychosocial factors related to participant and study partner differences, by looking at the over- and underreport of IADL difficulties by the participant, relative to their study partner. Results: Most A-IADL-Q scores represented no difficulties for both participants (87.9%) and study partners (89.4%). The concordance between participants and study partners was moderate (ICC = 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.51, 0.59]); 24.5% (N = 297) of participants overreported their IADL difficulties compared with study partners, and 17.8% (N = 216) underreported difficulties. The presence of depressive symptoms (odds ratio [OR] = 1.31, 95% CI = [1.12, 1.54]), as well as memory complaints (OR = 2.45, 95% CI = [1.80, 3.34]), increased the odds of participants overreporting their IADL difficulties. Higher IADL ratings decreased the odds of participant underreport (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = [0.67, 0.74]). Conclusion: In this sample of community-based volunteers, most participants and study partners reported no major IADL difficulties. Differences between participant and study partner were, however, quite prevalent, with subjective factors indicative of increased report of IADL difficulties by the participant in particular. These findings suggest that self- and study partner-report measures may not be interchangeable, and that the level of awareness needs to be considered, even in cognitively healthy individuals

Lumbar puncture patient video increases knowledge and reduces uncertainty: An RCT

Background: Patients often perceive a lumbar puncture (LP) as an invasive procedure. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a 3-minute educational animation-video explaining the LP procedure, on patients’ knowledge, uncertainty, anxiety, and post-LP complications. Methods: We included 203 newly referred memory clinic patients, who were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) home viewing of the video, (2) clinic viewing of the video, or (3) control condition (care as usual). Participants completed questionnaires measuring knowledge as information recall, uncertainty, anxiety, and post-LP complications, the latter when patients underwent an LP procedure (n = 145). Results: Viewing the video increased information recall for both home (P <.001), and clinic viewers (P <.001) compared to controls. Levels of uncertainty decreased after viewing (Pfor interaction=.044), particularly for clinic viewers. Viewing the video or not did not affect anxiety and post-LP complications. Discussion: Preparing individuals for an LP by means of an educational video can help to increase knowledge about the procedure and reduce feelings of uncertainty

The Cognitive Online Self-Test Amsterdam (COST-A): Establishing norm scores in a community-dwelling population

Background: Heightened public awareness about Alzheimer's disease and dementia increases the need for at-home cognitive self-testing. We offered Cognitive Online Self-Test Amsterdam (COST-A) to independent groups of cognitively normal adults and investigated the robustness of a norm-score formula and cutoff. Methods: Three thousand eighty-eight participants (mean age ± standard deviation = 61 ± 12 years, 70% female) completed COST-A and evaluated it. Demographically adjusted norm scores were the difference between expected COST-A scores, based on age, gender, and education, and actual scores. We applied the resulting norm-score formula to two independent cohorts. Results: Participants evaluated COST-A to be of adequate difficulty and duration. Our norm-score formula was shown to be robust: ≈8% of participants in two cognitively normal cohorts had abnormal scores. A cutoff of -1.5 standard deviations proved optimal for distinguishing normal from impaired cognition. Conclusion: With robust norm scores, COST-A is a promising new tool for research and clinical practice, providing low cost and minimally invasive remote assessment of cognitive functioning