Home › Research › Treatments
Characterizing clinician communication with patients about lecanemab: A qualitative study of clinicians across seven academic medical centers
Parks AL, Thacker A, Dohan D, Gomez LAR, Gale SA, Johnson KG, Ritchie CS, Shah SJ et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2025-07-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction Anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) slow cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease but may cause amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), which can rarely be disabling or fatal. This qualitative study investigates how clinicians communicate the benefits and risks of mAbs to patients and caregivers. Methods Semi-structured interviews with clinicians who prescribe mAbs at seven academic medical centers. Hybrid inductive-deductive thematic analysis by interdisciplinary researchers. Results In 27 clinician interviews (women [ n = 17], White individuals [ n = 19], neurologists [ n = 17]), three themes emerged. First, clinicians varied in techniques used and concepts emphasized, including using analogies, discussing statistics, and emphasizing versus de-emphasizing risks. Second, patient contextual factors (e.g., comorbidities), hopes, and fears shaped communication. Third, clinician communication varied by training, personal style, and ambivalence. While clinicians honor patients' choices to pursue treatment, many do not "recommend" it (but may recommend against it). Discussion Preliminary insights about how clinicians communicate tradeoffs can guide future shared decision-making interventions for mAbs. Highlights This qualitative study among 27 clinicians across seven academic medical centers examined how clinicians communicate with people with Alzheimer's disease about risks and benefits of anti-amyloid therapy, which can influence treatment decisions.Clinicians varied in what techniques they employed and how they portrayed risks and benefits, and whether they incorporated patients' values.They cited comorbidities, eligibility criteria fit, and degree of social support or family involvement in decisions as factors used in framing discussions, while fewer used patients' goals to guide discussion.The professional training, individual practice style, and personal sense of ambivalence of clinicians shaped conversations.These findings can guide future interventions to improve communication and shared decision-making.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Parks, A. L., Thacker, A., Dohan, D., Gomez, L. A. R., Gale, S. A., Johnson, K. G., et al. (2025). Characterizing clinician communication with patients about lecanemab: A qualitative study of clinicians across seven academic medical centers. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.70150
Vancouver
Parks AL, Thacker A, Dohan D, Gomez LAR, Gale SA, Johnson KG, et al. Characterizing clinician communication with patients about lecanemab: A qualitative study of clinicians across seven academic medical centers. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). 2025. doi:10.1002/trc2.70150. PMID: 40873665.
BibTeX
@article{parks2025-40873665,
author = {Parks, A. L. and Thacker, A. and Dohan, D. and Gomez, L. A. R. and Gale, S. A. and Johnson, K. G. and Ritchie, C. S. and Shah, S. J. and others},
title = {{Characterizing clinician communication with patients about lecanemab: A qualitative study of clinicians across seven academic medical centers}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (New York, N. Y.)},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1002/trc2.70150},
pmid = {40873665},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.70150}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results In 27 clinician interviews (women [ n = 17], White individuals [ n = 19], neurologists [ n = 17]), three themes emerged.
- First, clinicians varied in techniques used and concepts emphasized, including using analogies, discussing statistics, and emphasizing versus de-emphasizing risks.
- Highlights This qualitative study among 27 clinicians across seven academic medical centers examined how clinicians communicate with people with Alzheimer's disease about risks and benefits of anti-amyloid therapy, which can influence treatment decisions.Clinicians varied in what techniques they employed and how they portrayed risks and benefits, and whether they incorporated patients' values.They cited comorbidities, eligibility criteria fit, and degree of social support or family involvement in decisions as factors used in framing discussions, while fewer used patients' goals to guide discussion.The professional training, individual practice style, and personal sense of ambivalence of clinicians shaped conversations.These findings can guide future interventions to improve communication and shared decision-making.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Participants17
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 55/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 17 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40873665) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 32 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100. |
| Total | 55 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “clinician”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “clinician”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.