Search

Objective: We urgently need to understand Alzheimer's disease (AD) stigma among Black adults. Black communities bear a disproportionate burden of AD, and recent advances in early diagnosis using AD biomarkers may affect stigma associated with AD. The goal of our study is to characterize AD stigma within our cohort of self-identified Black participants and test how AD biomarker test results may affect this stigma., Design: We surveyed a sample of 1,150 self-identified Black adults who were randomized to read a vignette describing a fictional person, who was described as either having a positive or negative biomarker test result. After reading the vignette, participants completed the modified Family Stigma in Alzheimer's Disease Scale (FS-ADS). We compared FS-ADS scores between groups defined by age, gender, and United States Census region. We examined interactions between these groupings and AD biomarker test result., Results: Participants over age 65 had lower scores (lower stigma) on all 7 FS-ADS domains compared to those under 65: structural discrimination, negative severity attributions, negative aesthetic attributions, antipathy, support, pity, and social distance . In the biomarker positive condition, worries about structural discrimination were greater than in the biomarker negative condition and statistically similar in the two age groups (DOR, 0.39 [95%CI, 0.22-0.69]). This pattern of results was similar for negative symptom attributions (DOR, 0.51 [95%CI, 0.28-0.90])., Conclusion: While older adults reported less AD stigma than younger adults, AD biomarker testing caused similarly high concerns about structural discrimination and negative severity attributions. Thus, use of AD biomarker diagnosis may increase AD stigma and exacerbate healthcare disparities known to effect AD diagnosis in some Black adults. Advances in AD diagnosis may interact with social and structural factors to differentially affect groups of Black adults.

Introduction: Physical activity is associated with reduced risk of cognitive and functional decline but scalable, sustainable interventions for populations at risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD and related dementias (ADRD) are lacking., Methods: A 12-week randomized-controlled trial was conducted with a 3-week follow-up using a national AD prevention registry (GeneMatch). The control group (n = 50) set step goals and received daily feedback. The intervention group (n = 44) also received a behaviorally designed game based on achieving step goals and reinforced by a support partner., Results: Intervention participants (94 participants, mean age 70, 78% female) had greater change in mean daily step count than control of 1699 steps/day (95% confidence interval [CI], 1149-2249), P < 0.0001, which was sustained in the follow-up period at 1219 steps/day (95% CI, 455-1983), P = 0.0018. Carriers of the apolipoprotein E ε4 gene (high risk) did not perform differently than non-carriers; however, high self-reported risk perception was associated with higher activity., Discussion: A gamified intervention was effective in promoting and sustaining higher physical activity in older adults at genetic risk for AD/ADRD., Highlights: A simple game played with a support partner increased walking in older adults at risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD). The game also increased minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per day. Perception of lifelong AD risk was associated with increased activity but genetic risk (apolipoprotein E ε4+) was not., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05069155., (© 2024 The Author(s). Alzheimer's & Dementia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association.)

Objectives: Early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) using brain scans and other biomarker tests will be essential to increasing the benefits of emerging disease-modifying therapies, but AD biomarkers may have unintended negative consequences on stigma. We examined how a brain scan result affects AD diagnosis confidence and AD stigma., Methods: The study used a vignette-based experiment with a 2 × 2 × 3 factorial design of main effects: a brain scan result as positive or negative, treatment availability and symptom stage. We sampled 1,283 adults ages 65 and older between June 11and July 3, 2019. Participants (1) rated their confidence in an AD diagnosis in each of four medical evaluations that varied in number and type of diagnostic tools and (2) read a vignette about a fictional patient with varied characteristics before completing the Modified Family Stigma in Alzheimer's Disease Scale (FS-ADS). We examined mean diagnosis confidence by medical evaluation type. We conducted between-group comparisons of diagnosis confidence and FS-ADS scores in the positive versus negative brain scan result conditions and, in the positive condition, by symptom stage and treatment availability., Results: A positive versus negative test result corresponds with higher confidence in an AD diagnosis independent of medical evaluation type (all p < .001). A positive result correlates with stronger reactions on 6 of 7 FS-ADS domains (all p < .001)., Discussion: A positive biomarker result heightens AD diagnosis confidence but also correlates with more AD stigma. Our findings inform strategies to promote early diagnosis and clinical discussions with individuals undergoing AD biomarker testing., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The efficiencies of plasma Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers could facilitate early AD diagnosis. Unfortunately, limited knowledge exists about whether and how they would be used by clinicians., Objective: To identify and compare determinants of plasma AD biomarker use reported by primary care providers and dementia specialists., Design: Semi-structured interviews with clinicians organized using Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations theory and analyzed using an iterative coding approach., Participants: The subjects were internal and family medicine, neurology, and geriatrics providers with varying degrees of expertise in dementia diagnosis and care., Main Measures: Factors influencing a clinician's decision to use or not use plasma AD biomarkers in clinical practice., Key Results: We interviewed 30 clinicians (16 family or internal medicine providers, 8 geriatricians, and 6 neurologists). Fifteen were dementia specialists. Hesitance to use plasma AD biomarkers was due to perceived lack of effective treatments for AD, limited access to supports, and stigma. Plasma AD biomarkers would be more readily adopted by clinicians with dementia expertise., Conclusions: Several factors will influence clinical use of plasma AD biomarkers. Some of them may inform the design of interventions to promote the effective and appropriate clinical translation of these tests., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Introduction: How do reactions to a brain scan result differ between Black and White adults? The answer may inform efforts to reduce disparities in Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis and treatment., Methods: Self-identified Black (n = 1055) and White (n = 1451) adults were randomized to a vignette of a fictional patient at a memory center who was told a brain scan result. Measures of stigma and diagnosis confidence were compared between-groups., Results: Black participants reported more stigma than White participants on four of seven domains in reaction to the patient at a memory center visit. Black participants' confidence in an AD diagnosis informed by a brain scan and other assessments was 72.2 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 70.4 to 73.5), which was lower than the respective rating for White participants [78.1 points (95%CI 77.0 to 79.3)]., Discussion: Equitable access to early AD diagnosis will require public outreach and education that address AD stigma associated with a memory center visit., (© 2023 The Authors. Alzheimer's & Dementia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association.)

Objective: We examined how cognitive complaint types (CCTs) correlate with cognitive testing, perceived stress, and symptom distress in older adults with normal cognition and dementia., Methods: Older adults (n = 259) with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment, or mild-stage Alzheimer disease completed cognitive testing and self-report measures (Cognitive Difficulties Scale, Global Distress Index, Perceived Stress Scale). Cross-sectional analyses examined: (1) CCT composition by classification method,( 2) CCTs by diagnostic group, (3) correlations of CCTs with cognitive testing scores, and (4) correlations of CCTs with perceived stress and symptom distress., Results: CCTs derived from 2 classification approaches loaded onto 4 factors: memory, attention-concentration (AC), temporal orientation, and praxis. Memory contained complaints about both memory and executive functioning. AC contained both classifications of AC complaints. Complaints about AC (AC1 and AC2) differed by diagnostic group (all P < 0.05). One of 2 classifications of AC (AC1) complaints discerned between impaired and unimpaired long-delay memory scores (both P < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, that same classification of AC (AC1) complaints correlated with higher perceived stress (both P < 0.001) but not symptom distress (both P > 0.05)., Conclusion: CCTs showed a factor structure that was mostly robust between classification methods; however, some content-divergent CCTs shared factors, suggesting construct overlap. Relatively slight variations in content altered how CCTs correlated with diagnostic groups, perceived stress, and symptom distress. Most CCTs did not discern between impaired and unimpaired cognitive test scores. Research is needed to better understand CCTs as clinical markers and targets of clinical interventions., Competing Interests: S.D.S. is supported by the National Institute on Aging (K23AG065442). The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prior studies of Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker disclosure have answered important questions about individuals' safety after learning and comprehending their amyloid PET results; however, these studies have typically employed highly structured disclosure protocols and focused on the psychological impact of disclosure (e.g., anxiety, depression, and suicidality) in homogeneous populations. More work is needed to develop flexible disclosure protocols and study outcomes in ethnoculturally representative samples., Methods: The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is formally incorporating amyloid PET disclosure into the newest protocol (ADNI-4). Participants across the cognitive spectrum who wish to know their amyloid PET results may learn them. The pragmatic disclosure process spans four timepoints: (1) a pre-disclosure visit, (2) the PET scan and its read, (3) a disclosure visit, and (4) a post-disclosure check-in. This process applies to all participants, with slight modifications to account for their cognitive status. In designing this process, special emphasis was placed on utilizing investigator discretion. Participant measures include perceived risk of dementia, purpose in life, and disclosure satisfaction. Investigator assessment of the disclosure visit (e.g., challenges encountered, topics discussed, etc.) is also included., Results: Data collection is ongoing. Results will allow for more robust characterization of the impact of learning amyloid PET results on individuals and describe the perspectives of investigators., Conclusion: The pragmatic design of the disclosure process in ADNI-4 coupled with the novel participant and investigator data will inform future disclosure practices. This is especially important as disclosure of biomarker results expands in research and care., Competing Interests: JK reports grants from Lilly, Biogen, and Eisai. JDG reports grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (P30 AG066519), Lilly, Eisai, Biogen, BrightFocus Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Association. SML is on advisory boards for KeifeRX advisory board and the IPAT study. She has received speaker fees from Eisai. MRM reports grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Genentech, and the Alzheimer’s Association. She is on the Advisory Boards for: NIH Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers (Mayo Clinic, University of Texas Rio Grand Valley, University of Washington, and UC San Francisco); Brown University Center for Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center/Carney Institute for Brain Science; National Centralized Repository for ADRD (NCRAD); and the Harlem Community and Academic Partnership. OO reports funding from the National Institutes of Health. RCP reports grants from the National Institute on Aging and personal fees from Roche, Genentech, Lilly, Nestle, and Eisai. He has received royalties from Oxford University Press, UpToDate, and Medscape. PSA reports grants from the National Institutes of Health, Alzheimer’s Association, Janseen, Lilly, and Eisai. He also reports consulting relationships with Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Switch Therapeutics, NewAmsterdam Pharma, Roche, Genentech, Abbvie, Biogen, ImmunoBrain Checkpoint, and Arrowhead. MWW reports grants from National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, California Department of Public Health, Siemens, Biogen, Hillblom Foundation, Alzheimer’s Association, Johnson and Johnson, Kevin and Connie Shanahan, GE, VUmc, Australian Catholic University (HBI-BHR), The Stroke Foundation, and Veterans Administration. He also reports personal fees from Boxer Capital, Cerecin, Clario/BioClinica, Dementia Society of Japan, Eisai, Guidepoint, Health and Wellness Partners, Indiana University, LCN Consulting, Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp., Duke University, Prova Education, T3D Therapeutics, University of Southern California, WebMD, and MEDA Corp., and travel support from AD/PD Congress (Kenes Group), CTAD Congress, Foundation of Learning; Health Society (Japan), INSPIRE Project; University of Toulouse, Japan Society for Dementia Research, Korean Dementia Society, Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp., National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology Japan, and University of Southern California. MWW reports holding stock options from Alzeca, Alzheon, Inc., ALZPath, and Anven. EAL reports grants from the Greenwall Foundation and National Institute on Aging. The other authors (CME, KH) report no relevant disclosures.

Introduction: Alzheimer's-focused participant recruitment registries are tools for accelerating enrollment into studies, however, registry members are primarily White women., Methods: We conducted a national online survey of 1501 adults ages 50-80, oversampling for Black and Hispanic/Latino respondents, assessing intention to join a generic "brain health" registry and to join a registry that required specific tasks., Results: Intention to join a registry was low (M 3.48, SD 1.77), and lower than intention to join a registry requiring specific tasks. Intention was greatest for registries requiring completing surveys (M 4.70, SD 1.77). Differences in intention were primarily between White women and Black women; differences between other groups were limited to specific tasks required., Discussion: The results indicate uncertainty about what a registry is, its purpose, and/or the concept of "brain health." Using the Reasoned Action Approach (RAA) to develop evidence-based outreach messages describing a registry and required tasks may increase diversity., (© 2023 The Authors. Alzheimer's & Dementia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association.)

Objectives: Studies of Alzheimer's disease typically include "study partners" (SPs) who report on participants' cognition and function. Prior studies show SP reports differ depending on the relationship between the SP and participant, that is, spouse or adult child. Adult children SPs are typically female. Could differing reports be due to gender? Knowing this may help explain variability in measurement., Methods: The Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study enrolled a subset of participants from the Health and Retirement Study. Each participant had an SP. Bivariate and multivariable regression models compared 718 SP-participant dyads., Results: In analyses of 4 groups defined by SP and participant gender, dyads composed of 2 women were less likely to identify as White (75.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 70.4-80.5) than dyads composed of 2 men (93.3%, 95% CI, 81.2-97.8). In analyses adjusted for the severity of cognitive and functional impairment, women SPs rated women participants as more active than they rated men, mean 2.15 (95% CI, 2.07-2.22) versus mean 2.30 (95% CI, 2.24-2.37), respectively, on a 4-point scale. Similarly, men SPs rated women participants as more active than they rated men, mean 2.1 (95% CI, 2.0-2.2) and mean 2.4 (95% CI, 2.3-2.5), respectively. In an analysis of cognitively unimpaired participants, women SPs rated participants' memory worse than men SPs did (p < .05)., Discussion: SP and participant gender influence SPs' reports of another person's cognition and activity level. Our findings expand what is understood about how nondisease factors influence measures of disease severity., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background and Objective: This observational study examined how awareness of diagnosis predicted changes in cognition and quality of life (QOL) 1 year later in older adults with normal cognition and dementia diagnoses., Research Design and Methods: Older adults (n = 259) with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or mild stage Alzheimer's disease (AD) completed measures of diagnostic awareness, cognition, and multiple domains of QOL. We compared 1-year change in cognition and QOL by diagnostic group and diagnostic awareness., Results: Patients who were unaware of their diagnosis at baseline showed average decreases in both satisfaction with daily life (QOL-AD; paired mean difference (PMD) = -0.9, p < 0.05) and physical functioning (SF-12 PCS; PMD = -2.5, p < 0.05). In contrast, patients aware of their diagnosis at baseline showed no statistically discernable changes in most QOL domains (all p > 0.05). Of patients aware of their diagnosis at baseline (n = 111), those who were still aware (n = 84) showed a decrease in mental functioning at follow up (n = 27; SF-12 MCS). Change in MoCA scores in patients unaware of their diagnosis was similar to that in patients aware of their diagnosis, -1.4 points (95% CI -2.6 to -0.6) and -1.7 points (95% CI -2.4 to -1.1) respectively., Discussion and Implications: Awareness of one's diagnosis of MCI or AD, not the severity of cognitive impairment, may predict changes in patients' mental functioning, expectations of their memory, satisfaction with daily life, and physical functioning. The findings may help clinicians anticipate the types of threats to wellbeing that a patient might encounter and identify key domains for monitoring., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Three pathologic processes are characteristic of Alzheimer disease (AD): β-amyloid, hyperphosphorylated tau, and neurodegeneration. Our understanding of AD is undergoing a transformation due to our ability to measure biomarkers of these processes across different stages of cognitive impairment. There is growing interest in using AD biomarker tests in care and research and, with this, a growing need for guidance on how to return these sensitive results to patients and participants. Here, we propose a 5-step approach informed by clinical and research experience designing and implementing AD biomarker disclosure processes, extant evidence describing how individuals react to AD biomarker information, ethics, law, and the literature on breaking bad news. The clinician should (1) determine the appropriateness of AD biomarker testing and return of results for the particular patient or research participant. If testing is appropriate, the next steps are to (2) provide pretest education and seek consent for testing from the individual and their support person, (3) administer testing, (4) return the results to the individual and their support person, and (5) follow-up to promote the recipient's well-being., (© 2023 American Academy of Neurology.)

Background: Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias (AD/ADRD) research typically requires participants to enroll with a "study partner" (SP). Little is known about what predicts who steps into the SP role or whether the SP's relationship to the participant affects their reports of disease severity. Methods: Health and Retirement Study data (HRS), collected prior to the Aging, Demographics and Memory Study (ADAMS), was used to identify sociocultural factors that predict who serves as a SP in ADAMS. SP-reported outcomes were compared between three types of participant-SP relationships: spousal, adult child, and other. Results: Spouses (35%) and adult children (39%) were similarly likely to serve as SPs. Factors predicting who served differed. In multivariable analyses, adult children rated participants less impaired than spouses on measures of memory, judgment, and organizational abilities ( p < .05). Conclusions: The participant-SP relationship has independent effects on the SP's reports of the severity of cognitive impairments.

Objectives: Differences between men and women are common in published research on aging and Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias (AD/ADRD). What do these differences mean? To answer this, rigorous measurement is needed. We investigated current methods for measuring sex/gender in aging and AD/ADRD cohort studies., Methods: An online survey was sent to National Institute on Aging-funded Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (n = 38) and investigator-initiated cohort studies (n = 38) to assess practices around enrollment of men and women and measurement of sex and gender., Results: The response rate was 65.8% (n = 50). All enrolled men and all but two investigator-initiated studies enrolled women. Most cohorts (43/50) had no documented definitions for categories of "men" or "women." Over 85% of cohorts relied solely on self-report questions to capture sex/gender data (n = 43/50). Issues with administration were also identified (n = 7)., Discussion: Our findings identify gaps in current approaches used to measure sex and gender in aging and AD/ADRD research. We discuss opportunities to bridge these gaps and advance measurement of sex and gender in aging and AD/ADRD research. Changes are needed to ensure inclusion and representation of sociocultural diversity in research samples, and consistency in data collection in aging and AD/ADRD research., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Paradoxical lucidity in dementia is a clinically significant but understudied phenomenon. A provisional definition was proposed by the 2018 National Institute on Aging expert workshop and published in Alzheimer's and Dementia. However, several conceptual features of this definition remain vague, creating barriers to robust clinical research. Here, we critically analyze the provisional definition and present a refined definition that can be applied in clinical research. The refined definition is based on an analytic process our research group recently undertook to operationalize paradoxical lucidity for our own study protocol. Our goal is to facilitate debate and potentially harmonize interpretations of paradoxical lucidity among research groups., (© 2021 The Authors. Alzheimer's & Dementia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association.)

Objective: The symptoms and prognosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia contribute to the public's negative reactions toward individuals with AD dementia and their families. But what if, using AD biomarker tests, diagnosis was made before the onset of dementia, and a disease-modifying treatment was available? This study tests the hypotheses that a "preclinical" diagnosis of AD and treatment that improves prognosis will mitigate stigmatizing reactions., Methods: A sample of U.S. adults were randomized to receive one vignette created by a 3 × 2 × 2 vignette-based experiment that described a person with varied clinical symptom severity (Clinical Dementia Rating stages 0 (no dementia), 1 (mild), or 2 (moderate)), AD biomarker test results (positive vs negative), and disease-modifying treatment (available vs not available). Between-group comparisons were conducted of scores on the Modified Family Stigma in Alzheimer's Disease Scale (FS-ADS)., Results: The sample of 1,817 adults had a mean age two years younger than that of U.S. adults but was otherwise similar to the general adult population. The response rate was 63% and the completion rate was 96%. In comparisons of randomized groups, mild and moderate symptoms of dementia evoked stronger reactions on all FS-ADS domains compared to no dementia (all p < 0.001). A positive biomarker test result evoked stronger reactions on all but one FS-ADS domain (negative aesthetic attributions) compared to a negative biomarker result (all p < 0.001). Disease-modifying treatment had no measurable influence on stigma (all p > 0.05)., Conclusions: The stigmas of dementia spill over into preclinical AD, and availability of treatment does not alter that stigma. Translation of the preclinical AD construct from research into practice will require interventions that mitigate AD stigma to preserve the dignity and identity of individuals living with AD., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Participants in Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention studies are generally required to enroll with a study partner; this requirement constitutes a barrier to enrollment for some otherwise interested individuals. Analysis of dyads enrolled in actual AD trials suggests that the study partner requirement shapes the population under study., Objective: To understand if individuals can identify someone to serve as their study partner and whether they would be willing to ask that individual., Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with cognitively unimpaired, English-speaking older adults who had previously expressed interest in AD research by signing up for a research registry. We also interviewed their likely study partners. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and coded in an iterative, team-based process guided by a content analysis approach., Results: We interviewed 60 potential research participants and 17 likely study partners. Most potential participants identified one or two individuals they would be willing to ask to serve as their study partner. Interviewees saw value in the study partner role but also understood it to entail burdens that could make participation as a study partner difficult. The role was seen as relatively more burdensome for individuals still in the workforce or with family responsibilities. Calls from the researcher to discuss the importance of the role and the possibility of virtual visits were identified as potential strategies for increasing study partner availability., Conclusion: Efforts to increase recruitment, particularly representative recruitment, of participants for AD prevention studies should reduce barriers to participation by thoughtfully designing the study partner role.

Background: There is a lack of racial, ethnic, and sex diversity in recruitment research registries and Alzheimer's disease (AD) research studies and trials. Theory-based recruitment messages may provide an opportunity to increase study participant diversity in AD research studies and trials., Objective: To identify behavioral, normative, and control beliefs that are associated with joining an AD-focused recruitment registry among historically underrepresented groups., Method: Using a Reasoned Action Approach, we conducted 60 semi-structured phone interviews in 2020 among White, Black, and Hispanic adults ages 49-79 years in Philadelphia, PA. Underlying beliefs were elicited for the target behavior of "signing up to be on a registry for brain health research studies in the next month." Percentages based on counts are reported for the overall sample and by race and ethnicity and sex., Results: Participants were most concerned that if they were to sign up for a registry, they would be asked to participate in experimental studies. Advancing science to help others was a commonly reported positive belief about signing up. Participants' children and friends/neighbors were important from a normative perspective. Barriers to enrollment focused on logistical concerns and inconvenient sign-up processes, including using a computer. Results show generally few racial and ethnic or sex group differences., Conclusion: The elicited beliefs from underrepresented groups offer a basis for understanding the behavior of signing up for research registries. However, there were few differences between the groups. Implications for outreach and recruitment are discussed.

Background: Current practice guidelines recommend against Apolipoprotein E (APOE) testing. However, advances in Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and care may soon change this., Objective: To examine longitudinally the experience of learning an APOE result and, if an ɛ4 carrier, taking a disease-specific treatment to reduce one's risk of AD., Methods: Fifty ɛ4 carriers and 20 non-carriers completed semi-structured interviews 3 months and 15 months after APOE disclosure., Results: Individuals generally understand their APOE results. While non-carriers felt relief, ɛ4 carriers often described themselves as disappointed by their result but nevertheless glad to know. Carriers expressed concerns about stigma and discrimination, including in the workplace. Carriers adopted new health behaviors at higher rates than non-carriers and revised their future plans to account for their increased risk of AD. Individuals participating in research were hopeful that their participation would help them or others; individuals who learned they were at increased risk for AD but who could not participate in research were disappointed., Conclusion: Providers disclosing APOE results should be sensitive to how APOE results shape emotions, self-perceptions, and attitudes about memory; raise concerns about stigma and discrimination in personal and professional relationships; influence health behaviors and decision-making; and can have follow-on effects on family members.

Background: The experiences of biomarker-ineligible cognitively normal persons can inform trial conduct and the translation of preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) into clinical practice., Methods: We interviewed 33 persons whose "not elevated" brain amyloid imaging biomarker result made them ineligible for a preclinical AD trial., Results: Most participants (n = 17) reported being informed that they did not demonstrate adequately elevated amyloid to qualify, whereas some (n = 14) reported being told they had no amyloid or plaques. Relief (n = 17) and disappointment related to not being able to participate (n = 12) were the most common reactions to results. Nearly all participants would have made healthy lifestyle changes if they had received an "elevated" result, would have another scan, and would participate in another AD prevention trial., Conclusions: Although some participants may misconstrue results, disclosure of a "not elevated" amyloid result in the research setting causes little behavior change; willingness to participate in AD research remains.

Purpose: To examine in persons with varying degrees of cognitive impairment the relationship between self-reports of cognitive complaints and quality of life (QOL)., Methods: Older adults (n=259) with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and mild stage Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia completed tests of cognition and self-report questionnaires about QOL and 3 kinds of cognitive complaints: cognitive difficulties, distress from cognitive difficulties, and believing you had more memory problems than most people. Bivariate, multivariable, and multivariate regression analyses assessed relationships between domains of QOL and each cognitive complaint., Results: Bivariate and multivariable analyses controlling for severity of cognitive and functional impairment found that cognitive complaints were related to relatively lower quality of daily life (QOL-AD, Dementia Quality of Life Scale), greater depression (GDS), more anxiety (BAI), higher perceived stress (PSS), and lower general mental well-being (SF-12 MCS)., Discussion: Cognitive complaints have robust associations with QOL. These findings have implications for AD prevention trials and management of clinical populations.

The general public's views can influence whether people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) experience stigma. The purpose of this study was to understand what characteristics in the general public are associated with stigmatizing attributions. A random sample of adults from the general population read a vignette about a man with mild Alzheimer's disease dementia and completed a modified Family Stigma in Alzheimer's Disease Scale (FS-ADS). Multivariable ordered logistic regressions were used to examine relationships between personal characteristics and FS-ADS ratings. Older respondents expected that persons with AD would receive less support (OR = 0.82, p = .001), have social interactions limited by others (OR = 1.13, p = .04), and face institutional discrimination (OR = 1.13, p = .04). Females reported stronger feelings of pity (OR = 1.57, p = .03) and weaker reactions to negative aesthetic features (OR = 0.67, p = .05). Those who believed strongly that AD was a mental illness rated symptoms more severely (OR = 1.78, p = .007). Identifiable characteristics and beliefs in the general public are related to stigmatizing attributions toward AD. To reduce AD stigma, public health messaging campaigns can tailor information to subpopulations, recognizable by their age, gender, and beliefs.

Objective: This study examined how awareness of diagnostic label impacted self-reported quality of life (QOL) in persons with varying degrees of cognitive impairment., Method: Older adults (n = 259) with normal cognition, Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), or mild Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD) completed tests of cognition and self-report questionnaires that assessed diagnosis awareness and multiple domains of QOL: cognitive problems, activities of daily living, physical functioning, mental wellbeing, and perceptions of one's daily life. We compared measures of QOL by cognitive performance, diagnosis awareness, and diagnostic group., Results: Persons with MCI or AD who were aware of their diagnosis reported lower average satisfaction with daily life (QOL-AD), basic functioning (BADL Scale), and physical wellbeing (SF-12 PCS), and more difficulties in daily life (DEM-QOL) than those who were unaware (all p ≤ .007). Controlling for gender, those expecting their condition to worsen over time reported greater depression (GDS), higher stress (PSS), lower quality of daily life (QOL-AD, DEM-QOL), and more cognitive difficulties (CDS) compared to others (all p < .05)., Discussion: Persons aware of their diagnostic label-either MCI or AD-and its prognosis report lower QOL than those unaware of these facts about themselves. These relationships are independent of the severity of cognitive impairment., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The classification of Alzheimer's disease is undergoing a significant transformation. Researchers have created the category of "preclinical Alzheimer's," characterized by biomarker pathology rather than observable symptoms. Diagnosis and treatment at this stage could allow preventing Alzheimer's cognitive decline. While many commentators have worried that persons given a preclinical Alzheimer's label will be subject to stigma, little research exists to inform whether the stigma attached to the label of clinical Alzheimer's will extend to a preclinical disorder that has the label of "Alzheimer's" but lacks the symptoms or expected prognosis of the clinical form., Research Questions: The present study sought to correct this gap by examining the foundations of stigma directed at Alzheimer's. It asked: do people form stigmatizing reactions to the label "Alzheimer's disease" itself or to the condition's observable impairments? How does the condition's prognosis modify these reactions?, Methods: Data were collected through a web-based experiment with N = 789 adult members of the U.S. general population (median age = 49, interquartile range, 32-60, range = 18-90). Participants were randomized through a 3 × 3 design to read one of 9 vignettes depicting signs and symptoms of mild stage dementia that varied the disease label ("Alzheimer's" vs. "traumatic brain injury" vs. no label) and prognosis (improve vs. static vs. worsen symptoms). Four stigma outcomes were assessed: discrimination, negative cognitive attributions, negative emotions, and social distance., Results: The study found that the Alzheimer's disease label was generally not associated with more stigmatizing reactions. In contrast, expecting the symptoms to get worse, regardless of which disease label those symptoms received, resulted in higher levels of perceived structural discrimination, higher pity, and greater social distance., Conclusion: These findings suggest that stigma surrounding pre-clinical Alzheimer's categories will depend highly on the expected prognosis attached to the label. They also highlight the need for models of Alzheimer's-directed stigma that incorporate attributions about the condition's mutability., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: To inform whether the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) should change its policy of not returning research results to ADNI participants, we surveyed investigators and research staff about disclosing ADNI biomarker information to research participants, with particular emphasis on amyloid imaging results., Methods: In April 2012, just before Food and Drug Administration approval of the amyloid-binding radiotracer, florbetapir, all ADNI investigators and personnel were recruited to complete an anonymous online survey that contained fixed choice and free-text questions., Results: Although ADNI participants often requested amyloid imaging results (the proportions of investigators who reported requests from more than half of their participants with normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment were 20% and 22%, respectively), across all diagnostic groups, the majority of ADNI investigators (approximately 90%) did not return amyloid imaging results to ADNI participants. However, the majority of investigators reported that, if the Food and Drug Administration approved florbetapir, they would support the return of amyloid imaging results to participants with mild cognitive impairment and normal cognition, but they emphasized the need for guidance on how to provide these results to participants and for research to assess the value of returning results as well as how returning results will affect study validity and participant well-being., Conclusions: A majority of ADNI investigators support returning amyloid imaging results to ADNI participants. The findings that they want guidance on how to do this and research on the impact of disclosure suggest how to develop and monitor a disclosure process.