Home › Research › Disparities
Post-disclosure distress among racial and ethnic groups in a preclinical AD trial
Marina Ritchie, Christian R Salazar, Daniel L Gillen, Joshua D Grill. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2024-02-08
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Reactions to disclosure did not significantly differ among participant groups based on self-reported race and ethnicity. Although the results were not significant when stratified by amyloid status, all racial and ethnic groups except for participants self-reporting Hispanic/Latino ethnicity were observed to have higher mean IES in the elevated amyloid group. These results support continued use of current disclosure methods in preclinical AD trials.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Ritchie, M., Salazar, C. R., Gillen, D. L., & Grill, J. D. (2024). Post-disclosure distress among racial and ethnic groups in a preclinical AD trial. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13726
Vancouver
Ritchie M, Salazar CR, Gillen DL, Grill JD. Post-disclosure distress among racial and ethnic groups in a preclinical AD trial. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2024. doi:10.1002/alz.13726. PMID: 38329007.
BibTeX
@article{ritchie2024-38329007,
author = {Ritchie, Marina and Salazar, Christian R and Gillen, Daniel L and Grill, Joshua D},
title = {{Post-disclosure distress among racial and ethnic groups in a preclinical AD trial}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1002/alz.13726},
pmid = {38329007},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13726}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Reactions to disclosure did not significantly differ among participant groups based on self-reported race and ethnicity.
- Although the results were not significant when stratified by amyloid status, all racial and ethnic groups except for participants self-reporting Hispanic/Latino ethnicity were observed to have higher mean IES in the elevated amyloid group.
- These results support continued use of current disclosure methods in preclinical AD trials.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 46/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 46 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| 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 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 38329007) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 26 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 46 out of 100. |
| Total | 46 / 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 Disparities
Also tagged “costs”
265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.