View in EDS

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

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Biomarker counseling, disclosure of diagnosis and follow‐up in patients with mild cognitive impairment: A European Alzheimer's disease consortium survey.
Authors: Frederiksen, Kristian S. (AUTHOR), Nielsen, Thomas R. (AUTHOR), Appollonio, Ildebrando (AUTHOR), Andersen, Birgitte Bo (AUTHOR), Riverol, Mario (AUTHOR), Boada, Mercè (AUTHOR), Ceccaldi, Mathieu (AUTHOR), Dubois, Bruno (AUTHOR), Engelborghs, Sebastiaan (AUTHOR), Frölich, Lutz (AUTHOR), Hausner, Lucrezia (AUTHOR), Gabelle, Audrey (AUTHOR), Gabryelewicz, Tomasz (AUTHOR), Grimmer, Timo (AUTHOR), Hanseeuw, Bernard (AUTHOR), Hort, Jakub (AUTHOR), Hugon, Jacques (AUTHOR), Jelic, Vesna (AUTHOR), Koivisto, Anne (AUTHOR), Kramberger, Milica G. (AUTHOR)
Source: International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. Feb2021, Vol. 36 Issue 2, p324-333. 10p.
Subjects: Mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease, Medical disclosure, Counseling, Support groups
Geographic Terms: Europe
Abstract: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Description
Abstract: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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:08856230
DOI:10.1002/gps.5427