决定家族性痴呆的基因检测:患者和家庭的观点

IF 13 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Jetske van der Schaar, Sven J. van der Lee, Eva C. A. Asscher, Yolande A. L. Pijnenburg, Christa M. de Geus, Annelien L. Bredenoord, Wiesje M. van der Flier, Mariette A. van den Hoven, Ellen M. A. Smets, Leonie N. C. Visser
{"title":"决定家族性痴呆的基因检测:患者和家庭的观点","authors":"Jetske van der Schaar,&nbsp;Sven J. van der Lee,&nbsp;Eva C. A. Asscher,&nbsp;Yolande A. L. Pijnenburg,&nbsp;Christa M. de Geus,&nbsp;Annelien L. Bredenoord,&nbsp;Wiesje M. van der Flier,&nbsp;Mariette A. van den Hoven,&nbsp;Ellen M. A. Smets,&nbsp;Leonie N. C. Visser","doi":"10.1002/alz.70140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> INTRODUCTION</h3>\n \n <p>We explored patients’ and families’ interest in, predictors of, and considerations regarding genetic testing for monogenic causes of dementia in a diagnostic setting.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> METHODS</h3>\n \n <p>This mixed-methods study evaluated 519 consecutive Alzheimer Center Amsterdam patients for monogenic testing eligibility. Among those qualifying, differences between testers and non-testers were analyzed. Thirty-three patients completed questionnaires. Additionally, we conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with 15 patients and 18 relatives. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed inductively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> RESULTS</h3>\n \n <p>Of 138 (27%) eligible patients (46% female, age 61 ± 8 years, Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 22 ± 6), 75 (54%) underwent genetic testing. Testers had better cognition, higher quality of life, and more often undetermined diagnoses than non-testers (all <i>p </i>&lt; 0.05). Decisions were guided by intuitive, value-driven judgments: testers sought to provide heredity information to relatives, enhance actionability, and reduce uncertainty, while non-testers worried about psychosocial impact on family, or unfavorable timing.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> DISCUSSION</h3>\n \n <p>The substantial interest in genetic testing for monogenic causes of dementia underscores the need for further research into the implications of disclosing test results to memory clinic patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Highlights</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>Half of memory clinic patients’ who met eligibility criteria proceeded with genetic testing.</li>\n \n <li>Those tested were more likely to have an undetermined diagnosis, better cognition, and higher quality of life.</li>\n \n <li>Decisions were motivated less by deliberation of factual information, and more by quick, intuitive judgments.</li>\n \n <li>Motivations pro included providing information, enhancing actionability, and resolving uncertainty.</li>\n \n <li>Motivations con comprised concerns about the emotional burden and disruptive impact on their family.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":7471,"journal":{"name":"Alzheimer's & Dementia","volume":"21 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/alz.70140","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deciding on genetic testing for familial dementia: Perspectives of patients and families\",\"authors\":\"Jetske van der Schaar,&nbsp;Sven J. van der Lee,&nbsp;Eva C. A. Asscher,&nbsp;Yolande A. L. Pijnenburg,&nbsp;Christa M. de Geus,&nbsp;Annelien L. Bredenoord,&nbsp;Wiesje M. van der Flier,&nbsp;Mariette A. van den Hoven,&nbsp;Ellen M. A. Smets,&nbsp;Leonie N. C. Visser\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/alz.70140\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> INTRODUCTION</h3>\\n \\n <p>We explored patients’ and families’ interest in, predictors of, and considerations regarding genetic testing for monogenic causes of dementia in a diagnostic setting.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> METHODS</h3>\\n \\n <p>This mixed-methods study evaluated 519 consecutive Alzheimer Center Amsterdam patients for monogenic testing eligibility. Among those qualifying, differences between testers and non-testers were analyzed. Thirty-three patients completed questionnaires. Additionally, we conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with 15 patients and 18 relatives. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed inductively.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> RESULTS</h3>\\n \\n <p>Of 138 (27%) eligible patients (46% female, age 61 ± 8 years, Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 22 ± 6), 75 (54%) underwent genetic testing. Testers had better cognition, higher quality of life, and more often undetermined diagnoses than non-testers (all <i>p </i>&lt; 0.05). Decisions were guided by intuitive, value-driven judgments: testers sought to provide heredity information to relatives, enhance actionability, and reduce uncertainty, while non-testers worried about psychosocial impact on family, or unfavorable timing.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> DISCUSSION</h3>\\n \\n <p>The substantial interest in genetic testing for monogenic causes of dementia underscores the need for further research into the implications of disclosing test results to memory clinic patients.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Highlights</h3>\\n \\n <div>\\n <ul>\\n \\n <li>Half of memory clinic patients’ who met eligibility criteria proceeded with genetic testing.</li>\\n \\n <li>Those tested were more likely to have an undetermined diagnosis, better cognition, and higher quality of life.</li>\\n \\n <li>Decisions were motivated less by deliberation of factual information, and more by quick, intuitive judgments.</li>\\n \\n <li>Motivations pro included providing information, enhancing actionability, and resolving uncertainty.</li>\\n \\n <li>Motivations con comprised concerns about the emotional burden and disruptive impact on their family.</li>\\n </ul>\\n </div>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7471,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alzheimer's & Dementia\",\"volume\":\"21 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/alz.70140\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alzheimer's & Dementia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alz.70140\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alzheimer's & Dementia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alz.70140","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言 我们探讨了患者和家属在诊断过程中对痴呆症单基因病因基因检测的兴趣、预测因素和注意事项。 方法:这项混合方法研究对阿姆斯特丹阿兹海默中心的 519 名连续患者进行了单基因检测资格评估。在符合条件的患者中,分析了测试者与非测试者之间的差异。33 名患者填写了调查问卷。此外,我们还对 15 名患者和 18 名亲属进行了 21 次半结构式访谈。我们对逐字记录稿进行了归纳分析。 结果 在 138 名(27%)符合条件的患者(46% 为女性,年龄 61 ± 8 岁,迷你精神状态检查 [MMSE] 22 ± 6)中,75 名(54%)接受了基因检测。与未接受基因检测的患者相比,接受基因检测的患者认知能力更强,生活质量更高,而且更常出现诊断不明确的情况(所有数据均为 p < 0.05)。基因检测决定受直觉、价值判断的指导:检测者希望向亲属提供遗传信息、提高可操作性并减少不确定性,而非检测者则担心对家庭造成社会心理影响或不利的时机。 讨论 人们对痴呆症单基因病因基因检测的浓厚兴趣突出表明,有必要进一步研究向记忆门诊病人披露检测结果的影响。 亮点 符合资格标准的记忆门诊患者中有一半接受了基因检测。 接受检测的患者更有可能诊断不明确、认知能力更强、生活质量更高。 做出决定的动机较少来自于对事实信息的深思熟虑,而更多来自于快速的直觉判断。 积极动机包括提供信息、提高可操作性和解决不确定性。 反对动机包括担心对家人造成精神负担和破坏性影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Deciding on genetic testing for familial dementia: Perspectives of patients and families

Deciding on genetic testing for familial dementia: Perspectives of patients and families

INTRODUCTION

We explored patients’ and families’ interest in, predictors of, and considerations regarding genetic testing for monogenic causes of dementia in a diagnostic setting.

METHODS

This mixed-methods study evaluated 519 consecutive Alzheimer Center Amsterdam patients for monogenic testing eligibility. Among those qualifying, differences between testers and non-testers were analyzed. Thirty-three patients completed questionnaires. Additionally, we conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with 15 patients and 18 relatives. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed inductively.

RESULTS

Of 138 (27%) eligible patients (46% female, age 61 ± 8 years, Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 22 ± 6), 75 (54%) underwent genetic testing. Testers had better cognition, higher quality of life, and more often undetermined diagnoses than non-testers (all < 0.05). Decisions were guided by intuitive, value-driven judgments: testers sought to provide heredity information to relatives, enhance actionability, and reduce uncertainty, while non-testers worried about psychosocial impact on family, or unfavorable timing.

DISCUSSION

The substantial interest in genetic testing for monogenic causes of dementia underscores the need for further research into the implications of disclosing test results to memory clinic patients.

Highlights

  • Half of memory clinic patients’ who met eligibility criteria proceeded with genetic testing.
  • Those tested were more likely to have an undetermined diagnosis, better cognition, and higher quality of life.
  • Decisions were motivated less by deliberation of factual information, and more by quick, intuitive judgments.
  • Motivations pro included providing information, enhancing actionability, and resolving uncertainty.
  • Motivations con comprised concerns about the emotional burden and disruptive impact on their family.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Alzheimer's & Dementia
Alzheimer's & Dementia 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
299
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Alzheimer's & Dementia is a peer-reviewed journal that aims to bridge knowledge gaps in dementia research by covering the entire spectrum, from basic science to clinical trials to social and behavioral investigations. It provides a platform for rapid communication of new findings and ideas, optimal translation of research into practical applications, increasing knowledge across diverse disciplines for early detection, diagnosis, and intervention, and identifying promising new research directions. In July 2008, Alzheimer's & Dementia was accepted for indexing by MEDLINE, recognizing its scientific merit and contribution to Alzheimer's research.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信