Mozersky, Jessica T.

AbstractAlpha-synucleinopathies can be identified in their prodromal phase, raising several ethical issues. In this review, we first provide definitions of prodromal α-synucleinopathies and discuss the importance of distinguishing between prodromes and risk factors. Next, we discuss the implications of a diagnosis of prodromal α-synucleinopathy and considerations regarding prognostic counseling in both clinical and research settings. We review available data on patient preferences regarding disclosure as well as providers' perspectives. We examine the pros and cons of disclosing a diagnosis of prodromal α-synucleinopathy, taking into consideration the differences between clinical and research settings. Asking about willingness to know in clinical and research settings and the shared decision-making process applied to prognostic counseling is discussed. Concerning research settings, ethical aspects regarding clinical trials are addressed. Availability of direct-to-consumer technologies will likely lead to novel contexts requiring prognostic counseling, and future neuroprotective or neuromodulating treatments may require further considerations on the timing, role, and importance of prognostic counseling. Recommendations on how to address ethical gaps should be a priority for patients, medical professional societies, and research workgroups. Ethical issues must be considered as an integral part of the overall clinical and research approach to prodromal synucleinopathies.

AbstractBackgroundAs the population ages in the United States, the prevalence of many diseases like Alzheimer disease, related dementias, and Parkinson disease disproportionately affect those already at greatest risk for premature morbidity and mortality. Aging research has an opportunity to engage and support patients, communities, and caregivers most impacted by these diseases. However, under‐resourced communities frequently lack representation in research, causing decreased generalizability of study results and health inequities among these communities.MethodsUsing a community and patient engaged framework, we conducted three community engagement studios (studios) with caregivers, patients, providers, researchers, and advocates from the St. Louis community. The studios provide community input and recommendations on project feasibility, design, and cultural appropriateness. Proposed projects were presented during each studio, followed by a facilitated discussion with a neutral facilitator. Themes were derived using traditional qualitative content analysis.ResultsStakeholders included under‐resourced community members, LGBTQIA+ participants, and those without/inadequate health insurance. The main themes included participant commitment to health, culturally appropriate research design, and incentives. In addition, participants desired collaboration between researchers and the community, including connecting with local Alzheimer’s Disease Associations, faith‐based groups, and philanthropic organizations.ConclusionOur community stakeholders provided feedback on how we could modify the research design to increase community involvement, enhance participant recruitment and commitment, and reach populations currently underrepresented in aging research, especially Alzheimer’s disease. The early inclusion of stakeholders in research design and implementation constitutes a preliminary step to building trust within under‐resourced communities and increasing the recruitment and retention of diverse populations.