Claire Bamford1, Kirsty Olsen2, Chris Davison2, Nicky Barnett2, Jim Lloyd3, David Williams2, Michael Firbank2, Helen Mason4, Cam Donaldson4, John O'Brien2. 1. Institute of Health and Society,Newcastle University,Newcastle upon Tyne,NE4 5PL,UK. 2. Institute of Neuroscience,Campus for Ageing and Vitality,Newcastle University,Newcastle upon Tyne,NE4 5PL,UK. 3. Regional Medical Physics Department,Royal Victoria Infirmary,Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust,Newcastle upon Tyne,NE1 4LP,UK. 4. Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health,Glasgow Caledonian University,Glasgow,G4 0BA,UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography (PET) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) brain imaging are widely used as diagnostic tools for suspected dementia but no studies have directly compared participant views of the two procedures. We used a range of methods to explore preferences for PET and SPECT. METHODS: Patients and controls (and accompanying carers) completed questionnaires immediately after undergoing PET and SPECT brain scans. Pulse rate data were collected during each scan. Scan attributes were prioritized using a card sorting exercise; carers and controls additionally answered willingness to pay (WTP) questions. RESULTS: Few differences were found either between the scans or groups of participants, although carers marginally preferred SPECT. Diagnostic accuracy was prioritized over other scan characteristics. Mean heart rate during both scans was lower than baseline heart rate measured at home (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most participants viewed PET and SPECT scans as roughly equivalent and did not have a preference for either scan. Carer preference for SPECT is likely to reflect their desire to be with the patient (routine practice for SPECT but not for PET), suggesting that they should be able to accompany vulnerable patients throughout imaging procedures wherever possible. Pulse rate data indicated that brain imaging was no more stressful than a home visit (HV) from a researcher. The data do not support the anecdotal view that PET is a more burdensome procedure and the use of PET or SPECT scans in dementia should be based on diagnostic accuracy of the technique.
BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography (PET) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) brain imaging are widely used as diagnostic tools for suspected dementia but no studies have directly compared participant views of the two procedures. We used a range of methods to explore preferences for PET and SPECT. METHODS: Patients and controls (and accompanying carers) completed questionnaires immediately after undergoing PET and SPECT brain scans. Pulse rate data were collected during each scan. Scan attributes were prioritized using a card sorting exercise; carers and controls additionally answered willingness to pay (WTP) questions. RESULTS: Few differences were found either between the scans or groups of participants, although carers marginally preferred SPECT. Diagnostic accuracy was prioritized over other scan characteristics. Mean heart rate during both scans was lower than baseline heart rate measured at home (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most participants viewed PET and SPECT scans as roughly equivalent and did not have a preference for either scan. Carer preference for SPECT is likely to reflect their desire to be with the patient (routine practice for SPECT but not for PET), suggesting that they should be able to accompany vulnerable patients throughout imaging procedures wherever possible. Pulse rate data indicated that brain imaging was no more stressful than a home visit (HV) from a researcher. The data do not support the anecdotal view that PET is a more burdensome procedure and the use of PET or SPECT scans in dementia should be based on diagnostic accuracy of the technique.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alzheimer’s disease; PET; SPECT; dementia with Lewy bodies; diagnosis; patient preference; willingness to pay
Authors: Jason Scott; Jan Lecouturier; Nikki Rousseau; Gerard Stansby; Andrew Sims; Lesley Wilson; John Allen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 3.240