Search

Background: Hope for future treatments to prevent or slow down dementia motivates researchers to strive for ever-earlier diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (AD) based on biomarkers, even before symptoms occur. But is a biomarker-based early diagnosis desirable in clinical practice?Objective: This study explores the ethical considerations that shape current clinical practice regarding early AD diagnostics and the use of biomarkers.Methods: In this qualitative study, Dutch physicians were interviewed. Topics included physicians' views concerning early AD diagnosis in persons with no or mild cognitive impairment, physicians' considerations regarding current and expected future practices of early AD diagnosis, the use of biomarkers, and the use of the concepts preclinical and prodromal AD. We analyzed the transcripts using directed content analysis.Results: 15 general practitioners, neurologists, and geriatricians in the Netherlands were interviewed. Most of them interpreted an early AD diagnosis with an early diagnosis of dementia. We identified six clusters of considerations sometimes in favor but most often against pursuing an early AD diagnosis in people with no or mild cognitive impairment that influence physicians' diagnostic decision-making: preferences and characteristics of persons, test characteristics, impact on care, type of setting, disease concepts, and issues on a societal level.Conclusion: The discussion concerning an early AD diagnosis based on biomarkers which is widely held in the scientific field, has not entered clinical practice structurally. A biomarker-based early diagnosis does not fit within Dutch physicians' views on what good care for people with no, subjective, or mild cognitive impairment should entail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Care for the frail elderly is often provided by several professionals. Collaboration between them is essential, but remains difficult to achieve. Interprofessional education (IPE) can improve this collaboration. We developed a 9-hour IPE program for primary care professionals from 7 disciplines caring for the frail elderly, and aimed to establish whether the program improved professionals' interprofessional attitudes and attitudes toward collaboration, collaboration skills, and collaborative behavior. We also evaluated learners' reactions to the program. Methods: Before-after study, using the Interprofessional Attitudes Questionnaire (IAQ, score:1 to 7); Attitudes Toward Health Care Teams Scale (ATHCTS, score: 0 to 105); and Team Skills Scale (TSS, score:17 to 85). Additionally, semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 selected participants. Results: Participants' ( N = 80) overall interprofessional attitudes improved (IAQ baseline: 5.49; follow-up: 5.67, p = 0.001); attitudes toward geriatric teams did not change (ATHCTS baseline: 69.9; follow-up: 69.1, p = 0.32). Participants' self-reported team skills improved (TSS baseline: 45.7; follow-up: 48.1, p = 0.001). In the interviews, many interviewees reported increased collaboration with professionals of other disciplines due to the program. Interviewees considered the program's interprofessional nature and attending the program with local professionals important contributing factors to the experienced improvements in collaboration. However, they also noted that not all parts of the program had met the needs of all participating disciplines, due to differences in professional background and knowledge. Discussion: A brief IPE program can improve interprofessional attitudes, collaboration skills, and collaborative behavior. That such a program allows professionals to get acquainted with each other and each other's viewpoints appears to be as important as the educational content. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]