Beyond "worried well": health care professionals' perspectives on improving subjective cognitive decline care.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 GERONTOLOGY
Ryan A Mace, Mason J Stewart-McLellan, Makenna E Law, Dumichel Harley, Christine Ritchie, Stephen Bartels, Olivia I Okereke, Bettina B Hoeppner, Judson Brewer, Rebecca E Amariglio, Ana-Maria Vranceanu
{"title":"Beyond \"worried well\": health care professionals' perspectives on improving subjective cognitive decline care.","authors":"Ryan A Mace, Mason J Stewart-McLellan, Makenna E Law, Dumichel Harley, Christine Ritchie, Stephen Bartels, Olivia I Okereke, Bettina B Hoeppner, Judson Brewer, Rebecca E Amariglio, Ana-Maria Vranceanu","doi":"10.1093/geront/gnaf159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is an early indicator of cognitive impairment and dementia risk, yet its clinical management remains inconsistent. Health care professionals play a critical role in identifying and addressing SCD, but their perspectives on barriers and facilitators to care are understudied. This study explored health care professionals' insights for improving SCD care.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>We conducted five qualitative focus groups (n = 26) with multidisciplinary health care professionals providing care for older adults with SCD. Participants were recruited from diverse clinical settings within an academic medical center. Transcripts were analyzed using a hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis. We proposed strategies to overcome barriers to SCD care using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four major themes emerged: (a) Terminology, Identification, and Diagnosis-barriers related to inconsistent terminology, overlap with normal aging, and limited standardized guidelines; (b) Psychosocial Factors-stigma surrounding SCD, variability in patient motivation for interventions, and caregiver roles; (c) Access and Equity-disparities in culturally and linguistically concordant care, financial barriers, and exclusion from research; and (d) Health Care Systems-time constraints, referral delays, and clinic variability impacting the quality of care.</p><p><strong>Discussion and implications: </strong>Findings highlight systemic and psychosocial barriers to SCD care, as well as potential facilitators, including interdisciplinary collaboration and patient-centered strategies. Addressing these challenges requires targeted interventions to standardize terminology, improve provider education, enhance access, and promote equitable care. Future research should evaluate implementation strategies to optimize SCD management and reduce disparities in early dementia prevention efforts.</p>","PeriodicalId":51347,"journal":{"name":"Gerontologist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gerontologist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaf159","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is an early indicator of cognitive impairment and dementia risk, yet its clinical management remains inconsistent. Health care professionals play a critical role in identifying and addressing SCD, but their perspectives on barriers and facilitators to care are understudied. This study explored health care professionals' insights for improving SCD care.

Research design and methods: We conducted five qualitative focus groups (n = 26) with multidisciplinary health care professionals providing care for older adults with SCD. Participants were recruited from diverse clinical settings within an academic medical center. Transcripts were analyzed using a hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis. We proposed strategies to overcome barriers to SCD care using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change framework.

Results: Four major themes emerged: (a) Terminology, Identification, and Diagnosis-barriers related to inconsistent terminology, overlap with normal aging, and limited standardized guidelines; (b) Psychosocial Factors-stigma surrounding SCD, variability in patient motivation for interventions, and caregiver roles; (c) Access and Equity-disparities in culturally and linguistically concordant care, financial barriers, and exclusion from research; and (d) Health Care Systems-time constraints, referral delays, and clinic variability impacting the quality of care.

Discussion and implications: Findings highlight systemic and psychosocial barriers to SCD care, as well as potential facilitators, including interdisciplinary collaboration and patient-centered strategies. Addressing these challenges requires targeted interventions to standardize terminology, improve provider education, enhance access, and promote equitable care. Future research should evaluate implementation strategies to optimize SCD management and reduce disparities in early dementia prevention efforts.

超越“担心好”:医疗保健专业人员对改善主观认知衰退护理的看法。
背景和目的:主观认知能力下降(SCD)是认知障碍和痴呆风险的早期指标,但其临床管理仍不一致。医疗保健专业人员在识别和解决SCD方面发挥着关键作用,但他们对护理障碍和促进因素的看法尚未得到充分研究。本研究探讨医疗保健专业人员对改善SCD护理的见解。研究设计和方法:我们进行了5个定性焦点小组(N = 26),包括为患有SCD的老年人提供护理的多学科医疗保健专业人员。参与者是从一个学术医疗中心的不同临床环境中招募的。转录本分析使用混合演绎-归纳主题分析。我们使用实施变革的专家建议(ERIC)框架提出了克服SCD护理障碍的策略。结果:出现了四个主要主题:(1)术语、识别和诊断——与术语不一致、与正常衰老重叠以及标准化指南有限相关的障碍;(2)社会心理因素——SCD的耻辱感、患者干预动机的可变性和照顾者的角色;(3)获取和公平——文化和语言上的和谐护理、经济障碍和被排除在研究之外的差异;(4)医疗保健系统——时间限制、转诊延误和影响医疗质量的诊所可变性。讨论和启示:研究结果强调了SCD护理的系统性和社会心理障碍,以及潜在的促进因素,包括跨学科合作和以患者为中心的策略。应对这些挑战需要有针对性的干预措施,以规范术语,改善提供者教育,增加获取机会,促进公平护理。未来的研究应评估实施策略,以优化SCD管理,减少早期痴呆预防工作的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Gerontologist
Gerontologist GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
8.80%
发文量
171
期刊介绍: The Gerontologist, published since 1961, is a bimonthly journal of The Gerontological Society of America that provides a multidisciplinary perspective on human aging by publishing research and analysis on applied social issues. It informs the broad community of disciplines and professions involved in understanding the aging process and providing care to older people. Articles should include a conceptual framework and testable hypotheses. Implications for policy or practice should be highlighted. The Gerontologist publishes quantitative and qualitative research and encourages manuscript submissions of various types including: research articles, intervention research, review articles, measurement articles, forums, and brief reports. Book and media reviews, International Spotlights, and award-winning lectures are commissioned by the editors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信