What Could Be the Main Levers to Promote a Timely Diagnosis of Neurocognitive Disorders?

INTRODUCTION

Neurocognitive disorders (NCD) are a major and growing health issue [1], but remain under-diagnosed, and when a diagnosis is made, it is late in the course of the disease at a time when cognition and behavior are already deeply altered [2–5]. In France, the mean Mini-Mental State Examination score at the first diagnosis of NCD was estimated at 18.91±5.48 [4], and the mean dementia diagnosis rate was 66% in 2017/18 in the United Kingdom [6, 7].

For the identification of NCD patients, both an early diagnosis, i.e., as early as possible in the course of the disease (corresponding to the Chronos conception of time in ancient Greek [8], i.e., chronological time), and timely diagnosis of NCD has emerged (Kairos conception of time [8], i.e., an opportune moment, or right time) [2, 10]. The first European joint action on Alzheimer’s disease (AD) recommended in 2013 a timely diagnosis, when people first notice changes in cognition or behavior, complain, or present with a situation at risk that should be accessible to all sections of the community at a stage [2]. At the personal level, diagnosis of NCD is not experienced in terms of chronological time, and it has recently been reported that personalized diagnosis is more pertinent. A personalized diagnosis is defined as a diagnosis strategy in accordance with the dyad patient/caregiver’s needs and wills respecting the general principle of autonomy and should lead up to a global and personalized care plan established together with the patient, his or her close caregiver, and all the professionals involved [11, 12].

Diagnosis of NCD is associated with benefits for patients, caregivers, and society, for example future planning, elaboration of a suitable care plan, better informed patients and patient relatives who will better understand the symptoms and the course of the disease, access to medical research, and early interventions to prevent or delay progression [7, 14]. Risks related to an NCD diagnosis are also described, and include stigmatization, isolation, and lack of disease-modifying treatment in particular, and could explain the under-diagnosis of NCD [11, 15]. Many studies report that the general population would like to have the diagnosis if they had NCD [16–21]. We previously reported that perception of benefits of an NCD diagnosis workup was stronger than risks, at each stage of the NCD (from subjective cognitive decline to severe major NCD) among general practitioners (GPs), cognition specialized physicians (SPs; i.e., neurologists, psychiatrists, and geriatricians), other healthcare professionals (OHPs), and informal caregivers (ICs) in a national French survey [11]. Herein we will analyze with the same sample of respondents, the relative importance of each main risk and each main benefit from the point of view of GPs, SPs, ICs, and OHPs, and at each stage of NCD, but also between respondents. We hypothesize that the diagnosis workup of NCD could be further promoted by increasing further the balance in favor of benefits, and for this it is important to identify the benefits and risks that could be targeted.

METHODS

RESULTS

Perception of benefits in the total population for each case

The eight benefits were perceived significantly differently in the total population of respondents in each case (p < 0.001; Fig. 1). For case 1, the benefits “access to medical research” and “initiation of symptomatic drug treatment” were significantly lower than the other benefits. For cases 2, 3, and 4, the benefits “access to medical research”, “initiation of symptomatic drug treatment”, and “patient’s right to know” were significantly lower than the other benefits (Fig. 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig.1

Relative importance of different benefits in the decision to carry out an NCD diagnosis. Means and 95% confidence interval of each benefit and each stage in the total population of respondents are presented.

Perception of different risks in the total population for each case

The eight risks were perceived significantly differently in the total population of respondents in each case (p < 0.01; Fig. 2). For cases 1 and 2, the risk “negative psychological impact for the patient” was significantly higher than the other risks. For case 3, the highest perceived risk was the “absence of suitable institution at a specific stage of the disease”, whereas for case 4 the highest perceived risk was the “absence of disease-modifying treatment” (Fig. 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig.2

Relative importance of different risks in the decision to carry out an NCD diagnosis. Means and 95% confidence interval of each risk and each stage in the total population of respondents are presented.

Perception of benefits and risks according to type of respondent

For case 1, the perception of benefits and risks was significantly different between respondents, i.e., between GPs, SPs, ICs, and OHPs, except for the benefit “elaboration of a suitable care plan” (p = 0.11). For case 2, the perception of benefits and risks was significantly different between respondents, except for the benefit “future planning” (p = 0.64). For case 3, the perception of benefits and risks was significantly different between respondents, except for the benefit “Initiation of non-drug treatment” (p = 0.41). For case 4, the perception of benefits and risks was significantly different between respondents. Overall all the benefits and risks decreased from the case 1 to the case 4 (Figs. 3 and 4).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig.3

Perception of the 8 benefits of NCD diagnosis, for each respondent and each case. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, ns: non-significant: differences between respondent for each case (Kruskal-Wallis test).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig.4

Perception of the eight risks of NCD diagnosis, for each respondent and each case. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, ns: non-significant: differences between respondents for each case (Kruskal-Wallis test).

DISCUSSION

The present study found that “patient’s right to know”, “access to medical research”, and “initiation of symptomatic drug treatment” are the lowest perceived benefits; the “negative psychological impact for the patient”, mostly at the earlier stage, the “absence of suitable institution at a specific stage of the disease” and the “absence of disease-modifying treatment” were the highest perceived risks to make an NCD diagnosis.

The “patient’s right to know” was one of the lowest perceived benefits, although this is the general principle of autonomy [27]. The perception of this benefit decreases linearly from case 1 to case 4, similarly between the four groups of respondents. However, from a clinical point of view, respecting the patient’s right to know, whatever the stage of the NCD is the basis of a personalized diagnosis. The low perception of a benefit related to “initiation of symptomatic drug treatment”, particularly in GPs, is, however, understandable in the context of a study conducted in France, as, although symptomatic treatments of AD are still recommended by French scientific and medical societies specialized in NCD, they are no longer reimbursed [28]. Moreover, in France, symptomatic drug treatments are first prescribed by SPs and not by GPs. An interesting point highlighted in the present study was that, while, the “absence of disease-modifying treatment” was one of most important barriers of making a diagnosis, particularly in GPs and ICs, “access to medical research” was among the least important benefits. This seems to be a paradox, in particular as promoting medical research in primary care seems to be one of the main priorities in NCD [29, 30] but barriers to GP’s participation in research are complex and multifactorial [31]. Another point of note is that “negative psychological impact for the patient” was the leading perceived risk of an NCD diagnosis early-on during the course of the disease. This is in accordance with previous studies showing that NCD diagnosis could be accompanied by anxiety, worry, uncertainty, or shock, and sometimes with positive coping responses such as optimism [13, 32–34]. However there is little evidence to support an increase in negative reactions or suicidal risk after disclosure of NCD diagnosis [13, 33–35]. However, after diagnosis, it is reported that patients often feel without support to manage their uncertainties and emotions, and do not know where to turn for support; furthermore, caregivers also report that they do not receive adequate information [16, 33]. Later-on during the course of the disease, the “absence of suitable institution” became a prominent risk. This is in accordance with previous studies and a review previously pointed to the lack of accessible services for patients with NCD, accompanied by financial barriers for family [14].

Taken together, these risks and benefits could be the most interesting to act upon in order to increase the diagnosis of NCD, and we hypothesize that they could be modified. For instance, recognition of the importance of the “patient’s right to know” could be promoted by greater of knowledge about NCD in the general population and in healthcare professionals, particularly by explaining that patients who suffer from NCD are still able to participate in discussions until the advanced stages of the disease, and that the principle of medical ethics, e.g., the “patient’s right to know” are also valid in the context of NCD. To decrease the negative psychological impact for patients and caregivers, intervention strategies could be implemented, such as post-diagnosis psychological support, to create a more caring social context for people with dementia [16, 36]. Promoting medical research in primary care, perhaps with mobile research teams, could also increase the perceived utility of diagnosis of NCD, providing patients with potentially new therapeutic options [29, 30]. In addition, a policy to increase the availability of suitable institutions and support for patients and their relatives could be another lever to promote the diagnosis of NCD. Improve the diagnosis of NCD was an objective of the French national plan on dementia and of the European Joint Action, and a graduated diagnosis strategy tailored to the patient’s needs, clarifying the role of primary and specialty care has been recently proposed [12].

When assessing the differences in the importance of each benefit and risk among the different groups of respondents we found that GPs appeared less sensitive to the “patient’s right to know”, “access to medical research”, and “initiation of symptomatic drug-treatment”; GPs could thereby be the main target of the previously described recommendation. However, although in some reports GPs are portrayed as barriers to diagnosis, and accused of fatalism regarding NCD, with a “deficit model of GPs behavior and attitudes” [8], a growing body of evidence indicates that the attitude of the majority of GPs is not characterized by diagnostic and therapeutic nihilism and GPs are very positive about their key role in NCD care [37, 38]. For many patients, consultations with GPs where they discuss for the first time a cognitive complaint are positive experiences, with feelings of support, familiarity, and confidence. However, secondary care and memory clinics appear unfamiliar, frightening and sometimes depersonalizing, which could increase the negative psychological impact [32]. More attention should be paid to support GPs in the management of complexity and uncertainty of NCD cases, and specifically the dilemmas involved in meeting relatives’ needs for support over long periods [8]. Moreover, an incentive and research assistance could be offered to GPs that are motivated.

Strengths of the present study should be highlighted. This national survey included a large and diverse population. The prototypical clinical cases representing different stages of NCD [22–25] understandable by both medical and non-medical participants, constitutes one originality of this study design. Some limitations must, however, be taken into account when interpreting the results of this survey. Particularly we could not quantify how many received and did not answer the questionnaire because it was sent by many different associations. This could constitute a selection bias.

In conclusion, this study highlights the lowest perceived benefits and the highest perceived risks to make an NCD diagnosis that could be used as potential levers to promote NCD diagnosis. In particular, better knowledge about NCD, availability of suitable institutions, promotion of medical research, as well as implementation of pre-diagnosis and post-diagnosis interventions such as psychological support, could lead to a better personalized diagnosis of NCD, at the right time defined in terms of Kairos and not Chronos.