Hailey J James1,2, Courtney Harold Van Houtven2,3, Steven Lippmann2, James R Burke4, Megan Shepherd-Banigan2,3, Emmanuelle Belanger5,6, Terrie Fox Wetle6, Brenda L Plassman4,7. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Health Services Research and Development in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Center for Gerontology and Healthcare Research, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 6. Department of Health Services, Policy and Practice, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 7. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Amyloid-β PET scans will likely become an integral part of the diagnostic evaluation for Alzheimer's disease if Medicare approves reimbursement for the scans. However, little is known about patients' and their care partners' interpretation of scan results. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to understand how accurately patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia and their care partners report results of amyloid-β PET scans and factors related to correct reporting. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used to analyze survey data from 1,845 patient-care partner dyads and responses to open-ended questions about interpretation of scan results from a sub-sample of 200 dyads. RESULTS: Eighty-three percent of patients and 85% of care partners correctly reported amyloid-β PET scan results. Patients' higher cognitive function was associated with a small but significant decrease in the predicted probability of not only patients accurately reporting scan results (ME: -0.004, 95% CI: -0.007, -0.000), but also care partners accurately reporting scan results (ME: -0.006, 95% CI: -0.007, -0.001), as well as decreased concordance between patient and care partner reports (ME: -0.004, 95% CI: -0.007, -0.001). Content analysis of open-ended responses found that participants who reported the scan results incorrectly exhibited more confusion about diagnostic terminology than those who correctly reported the scan results. CONCLUSION: Overall, patients with MCI or dementia showed high rates of accurate reporting of amyloid-β PET scan results. However, responses to questions about the meaning of the scan results highlight the need for improved provider communication, including providing written explanations and better prognostic information.
BACKGROUND: Amyloid-β PET scans will likely become an integral part of the diagnostic evaluation for Alzheimer's disease if Medicare approves reimbursement for the scans. However, little is known about patients' and their care partners' interpretation of scan results. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to understand how accurately patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia and their care partners report results of amyloid-β PET scans and factors related to correct reporting. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used to analyze survey data from 1,845 patient-care partner dyads and responses to open-ended questions about interpretation of scan results from a sub-sample of 200 dyads. RESULTS: Eighty-three percent of patients and 85% of care partners correctly reported amyloid-β PET scan results. Patients' higher cognitive function was associated with a small but significant decrease in the predicted probability of not only patients accurately reporting scan results (ME: -0.004, 95% CI: -0.007, -0.000), but also care partners accurately reporting scan results (ME: -0.006, 95% CI: -0.007, -0.001), as well as decreased concordance between patient and care partner reports (ME: -0.004, 95% CI: -0.007, -0.001). Content analysis of open-ended responses found that participants who reported the scan results incorrectly exhibited more confusion about diagnostic terminology than those who correctly reported the scan results. CONCLUSION: Overall, patients with MCI or dementia showed high rates of accurate reporting of amyloid-β PET scan results. However, responses to questions about the meaning of the scan results highlight the need for improved provider communication, including providing written explanations and better prognostic information.
Authors: Gil D Rabinovici; Constantine Gatsonis; Charles Apgar; Kiran Chaudhary; Ilana Gareen; Lucy Hanna; James Hendrix; Bruce E Hillner; Cynthia Olson; Orit H Lesman-Segev; Justin Romanoff; Barry A Siegel; Rachel A Whitmer; Maria C Carrillo Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David A Wolk; Carl Sadowsky; Beth Safirstein; Juha O Rinne; Ranjan Duara; Richard Perry; Marc Agronin; Jose Gamez; Jiong Shi; Adrian Ivanoiu; Lennart Minthon; Zuzana Walker; Steen Hasselbalch; Clive Holmes; Marwan Sabbagh; Marilyn Albert; Adam Fleisher; Paul Loughlin; Eric Triau; Kirk Frey; Peter Høgh; Andrea Bozoki; Roger Bullock; Eric Salmon; Gillian Farrar; Christopher J Buckley; Michelle Zanette; Paul F Sherwin; Andrea Cherubini; Fraser Inglis Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Rik Ossenkoppele; Niels D Prins; Yolande A L Pijnenburg; Afina W Lemstra; Wiesje M van der Flier; Sofie F Adriaanse; Albert D Windhorst; Ron L H Handels; Claire A G Wolfs; Pauline Aalten; Frans R J Verhey; Marcel M Verbeek; Mark A van Buchem; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Philip Scheltens; Bart N M van Berckel Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Pascual Sánchez-Juan; Pia M Ghosh; Jayne Hagen; Benno Gesierich; Maya Henry; Lea T Grinberg; James P O'Neil; Mustafa Janabi; Eric J Huang; John Q Trojanowski; Harry V Vinters; Marilu Gorno-Tempini; William W Seeley; Adam L Boxer; Howard J Rosen; Joel H Kramer; Bruce L Miller; William J Jagust; Gil D Rabinovici Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Courtney Harold Van Houtven; Katherine E M Miller; Emily C O'Brien; Jennifer L Wolff; Jennifer Lindquist; Margaret Kabat; Margaret Campbell-Kotler; Jennifer Henius; Corrine I Voils Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Sebastian Palmqvist; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Susanna Vestberg; Ulf Andreasson; David J Brooks; Rikard Owenius; Douglas Hägerström; Per Wollmer; Lennart Minthon; Oskar Hansson Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Jennifer H Lingler; J Scott Roberts; Hyejin Kim; Jonna L Morris; Lu Hu; Meghan Mattos; Eric McDade; Oscar L Lopez Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2018-05-30
Authors: Rachel L Nosheny; Rebecca Amariglio; Sietske A M Sikkes; Carol Van Hulle; Maria Aparecida Camargos Bicalho; N Maritza Dowling; Sonia Maria Dozzi Brucki; Zahinoor Ismail; Kensaku Kasuga; Elizabeth Kuhn; Katya Numbers; Anna Aaronson; Davide Vito Moretti; Arturo X Pereiro; Gonzalo Sánchez-Benavides; Allis F Sellek Rodríguez; Prabitha Urwyler; Kristina Zawaly Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2022-10-04