Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Stakeholders’ Views on Early Diagnosis for Alzheimer’s Disease, Clinical Trial Participation and Amyloid PET Disclosure: A Focus Group Study

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Detection of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in an early stage is receiving increasing attention for a number of reasons, such as the failure of drug trials in more advanced disease stages, the demographic evolution, the financial impact of AD, and the approval of amyloid tracers for clinical use. Five focus group interviews with stakeholders (healthy elderly, informal caregivers, nursing staff, researchers, and clinicians) were conducted.. The verbatim transcripts were analysed via the Nvivo 11 software. Most stakeholder groups wanted to know their own amyloid PET scan result. However, differences occurred between FGs: two groups (informal caregivers and researchers) wanted to know, whilst in the three other groups (healthy elderly, nursing staff, and clinicians) FG members opted not to know or were still in doubt about their decision. Stakeholders provided insight into their reasons for wanting to know their amyloid PET scan result (e.g., the need for clarity, to inform relatives, to make arrangements), for not wanting to know their result, or why they were in doubt about their decision (e.g., fear of AD, not wanting to burden their social environment). Several advantages (e.g., to know what is going on with their health, to plan for the future) and disadvantages (e.g., absence of a disease modifying treatment, risks when undergoing tests) were mentioned as part of knowing their amyloid PET scan result. Certain considerations were clustered in a grey zone, in between advantage and disadvantage, such as the emotional consequences. Clinicians, researchers, and policymakers ought to be aware of the diversity of reasons for (not) wanting to know their result and how possible benefits and risks can be viewed differently. The current findings are of importance for future early diagnosis and disclosure of results in the research setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antoine, P., and F. Pasquier. 2013. Emotional and psychological implications of early AD diagnosis. The Medical Clinics of North America 97(3): 459–475.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bazeley, P. 2007. Qualitative data analysis with NVivo, 2nd ed. SAGE Publications Ltd. 

  • Betts Adams, K. 2006. The transition to caregiving: The experience of family members embarking on the dementia caregiving career. Journal of Gerontological Social Work 47(3/4) (June): 3–29.

  • Cahill, S., M. Clark, H. O’Connell, B. Lawlor, R.F. Coen, and C. Walsh. 2008. The attitudes and practices of general practitioners regarding dementia diagnosis in Ireland. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 23(7): 663–669.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, H.F.K., and H. Brodaty. 2013. Arguments against the biomarker-driven diagnosis of AD. Journal Article. International Psychogeriatrics / IPA 25 (2): 177–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell, C.M., M.R. Janevic, and M.P. Gallant. 2001. The costs of caring: Impact of dementia on family caregivers. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology 14(4): 179–187.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Connell, C.M, L. Boise, J.C. Stuckey, S.B. Holmes, and M.L. Hudson. 2004. Attitudes toward the diagnosis and disclosure of dementia among family caregivers and primary care physicians. The Gerontologist 44(4): 500–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Lepeleire, J., A.W. Wind, S. Iliffe, et al. 2008. The primary care diagnosis of dementia in Europe: An analysis using multidisciplinary, multinational expert groups. Aging & Mental Health 12(5): 568–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vugt, M.E., and F.R.J. Verhey. 2013. The impact of early dementia diagnosis and intervention on informal caregivers. Progress in Neurobiology 110: 54–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dhedhi, S.A., D. Swinglehurst, and J. Russell. 2014. “Timely” diagnosis of dementia: What does it mean? A narrative analysis of GPs’ accounts. BMJ Open 4(3): e004439.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Draper, B., C. Peisah, J. Snowdon, and H. Brodaty. 2010. Early dementia diagnosis and the risk of suicide and euthanasia. Editorial review. Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association. United States.

  • Dubois, B., A. Padovani, P. Scheltens, A. Rossi, and G. Dell’Agnello. 2016. Timely diagnosis for Alzheimer’s Disease: A literature review on benefits and challenges. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 49(3): 617–631.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, L., A. Lloyd, J.A. Flynn, et al. 2006. Impact of cognitive impairment on mild dementia patients and mild cognitive impairment patients and their informants. International Psychogeriatrics 18(1): 151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gastmans, C. 2017. Euthanasia in persons with severe dementia. In Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Lessons from Belgium, edited by C. Jones, D.A. Gastmans, and C. Mackellar, 212–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gastmans, C., and Y. Denier. 2010. What if patients with dementia use decision aids to make an advance euthanasia request? The American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB 10(4): 25–26.

  • Green, R.C., J.S. Roberts, N.R. Relkin, et al 2009. Disclosure of APOE genotype for risk of Alzheimer’s disease. The New England Journal of Medicine 361(3): 245–254.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Grill, J.D., C.G. Cox, S. Kremen, et al. 2017. Patient and caregiver reactions to clinical amyloid imaging. Alzheimer’s & Dementia 13(8): 924–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grill, J.D., D.K. Johnson, and J.M. Burns. 2013. Should we disclose amyloid imaging results to cognitively normal individuals? Neurodegenerative Disease Management 3(1): 43–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Herholz, K., and K. Ebmeier. 2011. Clinical amyloid imaging in Alzheimer’s disease. The Lancet Neurology 10(7): 667–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H.-F., and S.E. Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9): 1277–1288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K.A., S. Minoshima, N.I. Bohnen, et al. 2013. Appropriate use criteria for amyloid PET: A report of the amyloid imaging task force, the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, and the Alzheimer’s Association. Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association 9(1): e-1–16.

  • Kitzinger, J. 1995. Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 311(7000): 299–302.

  • Lawrence, V., J. Pickett, C. Ballard, and J. Murray. 2014. Patient and carer views on participating in clinical trials for prodromal Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 29(1): 22–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, A.J. 2013. Amyloid imaging: The court of public opinion. Neurology 81(13): 1108–1109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levi, B.H, and M.J. Green. 2010. Too soon to give up: Re-examining the value of advance directives. The American Journal of Bioethics 10(4): 3–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lingler, J.H., and W.E. Klunk. 2013. Disclosure of amyloid imaging results to research participants: Has the time come? Alzheimer’s & Dementia : The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association 9(6): 741–744.e2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortelmans, D. 2007. Handboek Kwalitatieve Onderzoeksmethoden. Vierde. Leuven & Den Haag: Acco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, P.J, J.K. Hammitt, C. Mueller, et al. 2001. Public attitudes about genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease. Health Affairs (Project Hope) 20(5): 252–264.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, R.C., R. Doody, A. Kurz, et al. 2001. Current concepts in mild cognitive impairment. Archives of Neurology 58: 1985–1992.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Porteri, C., and G.B. Frisoni. 2014. Biomarker-based diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: How and what to tell. A kickstart to an ethical discussion. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 6(January): 41.

  • Porteri, C., S. Galluzzi, C. Geroldi, and G.B. Frisoni. 2010. Diagnosis disclosure of prodromal Alzheimer disease: Ethical analysis of two cases. The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences. Le Journal Canadien Des Sciences Neurologiques 37(1): 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prvulovic, D., and H. Hampel. 2011. Ethical considerations of biomarker use in neurodegenerative diseases--a case study of Alzheimer’s disease. Progress in Neurobiology 95(4): 517–519.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J.S., L.A. Cupples, N.R. Relkin, P.J. Whitehouse, and R.C. Green. 2005. Genetic risk assessment for adult children of people with Alzheimer’s disease: The risk evaluation and education for Alzheimer’s disease (REVEAL) study. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology 18(4): 250–255.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J.S., L.B. Dunn, and G.D. Rabinovici. 2013. Amyloid imaging, risk disclosure and Alzheimer’s disease: Ethical and practical issues. Neurodegenerative Disease Management 3(3): 219–229.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, L., E. Tang, and J.P. Taylor. 2015. Dementia: Timely diagnosis and early intervention. BMJ 350 (jun15/14): h3029–h3029.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S., S. Iliffe, M. Downs, et al. 2004. General practitioners’ knowledge, confidence and attitudes in the diagnosis and management of dementia. Age and Ageing 33(5): 461–467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Hout, H., M. Vernooij-Dassen, K. Bakker, M. Blom, and R. Grol. 2000. General practitioners on dementia: Tasks, practices and obstacles. Patient Education and Counseling 39(2–3): 219–225.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberghe, R., K. Adamczuk, P. Dupont, K. Van Laere, and G. Chételat. 2013a. Amyloid PET in clinical practice: Its place in the multidimensional space of Alzheimer’s disease. NeuroImage. Clinical 2(January): 497–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberghe, R., K. Adamczuk, and K. Van Laere. 2013b. The interest of amyloid PET imaging in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Current Opinion in Neurology 26(0): 646–655.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderschaeghe, G., J. Schaeverbeke, R. Bruffaerts, R. Vandenberghe, and K. Dierickx. 2017a. Amnestic MCI patients’ experiences after the disclosure of their amyloid PET result in a research context. Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy 9(92).

  • Vanderschaeghe, G., J. Schaeverbeke, R. Vandenberghe, and K. Dierickx. 2017b. Amnestic MCI patients’ perspectives toward disclosure of amyloid PET results in a research context. Neuroethics 10(2): 281–297..

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Vollmann, J. 2001. Advance directives in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Ethical and clinical considerations. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 4(2): 161–167.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Werner, P., and A.D. Korczyn. 2008. Mild cognitive impairment: Conceptual, assessment, ethical, and social issues. Clinical Interventions in Aging 3(3): 413–420.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Widdershoven, G., and R.L. Berghmans. 2001. Advance directives in dementia care: From instructions to instruments. Patient Education and Counseling 44(2): 179–186.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Witte, M.M., N.L. Foster, A.S. Fleisher, et al. 2015. Clinical use of amyloid-positron emission tomography neuroimaging: Practical and bioethical considerations. Alzheimer’s & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring, July.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gwendolien Vanderschaeghe.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM

(PDF 539 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vanderschaeghe, G., Vandenberghe, R. & Dierickx, K. Stakeholders’ Views on Early Diagnosis for Alzheimer’s Disease, Clinical Trial Participation and Amyloid PET Disclosure: A Focus Group Study. Bioethical Inquiry 16, 45–59 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-019-09901-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-019-09901-9

Keywords

Navigation