Literature DB >> 25098349

Assessing families' and patients' attitudes toward brain donation for research purposes in a Brazilian population sample.

M K Fonseca1, E Rodrigues-Neto, A S R Costa, M A B C Rockembach, R S Padilha, L L Fernandez, F H Oliveira, L P Garcia, A Hilbig.   

Abstract

The neuropathological examination of postmortem human brain tissue is an essential resource for the definitive diagnosis and research on neurodegenerative diseases. Due to the growing need of donated brains to supply the Brain Banks, the understanding of the factors associated with the consent for the donation in our context is an important aspect of the process of brain donation. The verbal answers and the donation consent rate were evaluated in three groups: 30 relatives of patients who underwent verification of the cause of death, 14 patients assisted at a neurology ambulatory outpatient clinic, and 18 patients' relatives. The donation consent rates were of 46.6, 92.8 and 88.8 %, respectively. The main reasons for refusal were the disagreement with the autopsy, philosophical and religious issues, objections from other family members, and the consideration of the wishes of the deceased. The consent was specially motivated by the interest in the advances of scientific knowledge, altruistic reasons and the personal experiences with the disease. Factors as the emotional fragility at the moment of death, the beliefs, family matters, and the lack of knowledge are key elements in the donation process. Future goals include the establishment of a brain donor program with the support of academic institutions, hospitals, scientists, community, patient's associations and autopsy assistants. Approaching patients and relatives in specialized ambulatories clinic during assistance is probably the most efficient mean of obtaining brains for research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25098349     DOI: 10.1007/s10561-014-9465-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cell Tissue Bank        ISSN: 1389-9333            Impact factor:   1.522


  5 in total

1.  Community perceptions related to brain donation: Evidence for intervention.

Authors:  Catherine W Striley; Sadaf A Milani; Evan Kwiatkowski; Steven T DeKosky; Linda B Cottler
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 21.566

2.  Making a family decision to donate the brain for genomic research: lessons from the genotype-tissue expression project (GTEx).

Authors:  Laura A Siminoff; Deborah Mash; Maureen Wilson-Genderson; Heather M Gardiner; Maghboeba Mosavel; Laura Barker
Journal:  Cell Tissue Bank       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 1.752

3.  Promise and challenges of dystonia brain banking: establishing a human tissue repository for studies of X-Linked Dystonia-Parkinsonism.

Authors:  Cara Fernandez-Cerado; G Paul Legarda; M Salvie Velasco-Andrada; Abegail Aguil; Niecy G Ganza-Bautista; J Benedict B Lagarde; Jasmin Soria; Roland Dominic G Jamora; Patrick J Acuña; Charles Vanderburg; Ellen Sapp; Marian DiFiglia; Micaela G Murcar; Lindsey Campion; Laurie J Ozelius; Amy K Alessi; Malvindar K Singh-Bains; Henry J Waldvogel; Richard L M Faull; Regina Macalintal-Canlas; Edwin L Muñoz; Ellen B Penney; Mark A Ang; Cid Czarina E Diesta; D Cristopher Bragg; Geraldine Acuña-Sunshine
Journal:  J Neural Transm (Vienna)       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 3.575

4.  Neuropathological findings in entorhinal cortex of subjects aged 50 years or older and their correlation with dementia in a sample from Southern Brazil.

Authors:  Edson Rodrigues Neto; Mariana K Fonseca; Álvaro C B Guedes; Francine H Oliveira; Arlete Hilbig; Liana Lisboa Fernandez
Journal:  Dement Neuropsychol       Date:  2017 Jan-Mar

5.  Frequency of brain tissue donation for research after suicide.

Authors:  Vanessa K Longaray; Carolina S Padoan; Pedro D Goi; Rodrigo C da Fonseca; Daniel C Vieira; Francine H de Oliveira; Flávio Kapczinski; Pedro V Magalhães
Journal:  Braz J Psychiatry       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 2.697

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.