4.5 Article

Prediction and Early Detection of Alzheimer's Dementia: Professional Disclosure Practices and Ethical Attitudes

Journal

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages 145-155

Publisher

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-170443

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; dementia; disclosure; ethics; Germany; questionnaires; surveys

Categories

Funding

  1. Ilidio Pinho professorship
  2. iBiMED at the University of Aveiro, Portugal [UID/BIM/04501/2013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Biomarker-supported testing for preclinical and prodromal Alzheimer's disease (AD) finds its way into clinical practice. Professional attitudes and practices regarding disclosure and ethical issues are controversial in many countries. Objectives: Against this background, the objective was to survey the actual practice and the attitudes of physicians in German hospitals and memory clinics in order to explore possible practical insecurities and ethical concerns. Methods: A detailed survey with 37 items was conducted among medical professionals at German hospitals and memory clinics (n = 108). Analyses were performed using SPSS 21.0 (IBM). Findings were based on frequency and percentage distribution. Results: Nearly half of the respondents stated that persons with mild cognitive impairment and pathological cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers were informed they had or would soon develop AD. While 81% acknowledged a 'right not to know', 75% said that results were always communicated. A majority agreed there was a benefit of prediction or later life planning [end-of-life, financial, family, housing (73-75%)] but also expected high psychological stress (82%) and self-stigmatization (70%) for those tested. Conclusions: There is considerable heterogeneity and insecurity regarding prediction and early detection in the context of AD in Germany. Information of professionals and standardization of professional testing and disclosure practices are needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available