Neuropsychological assessment and diagnostic disclosure at a memory clinic: A qualitative study of the experiences of patients and their family members
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to gain insight into the experiences of patients and their family members regarding a neuropsychological assessment (NPA) and the diagnostic disclosure given by the medical specialist (psychiatrist, geriatrician, or their residents) at the memory clinic (MC). METHOD: Patients with and without a cognitive impairment and their family members were recruited from three Dutch MCs. Four focus groups with 14 patients and 13 family members were analyzed using both inductive and deductive content analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: uncertainty, early diagnostic paradox, and knowledge utilization. High levels of uncertainty were experienced throughout the NPA and diagnostic disclosure. The early diagnostic paradox refers to the coexistence of negative emotions, feeling distressed due to undergoing an NPA that made them aware of their cognitive complaints, and the experience of relief due to insight given by the outcome of the NPA and medical diagnosis. Knowledge utilization refers to a low retention of medical information. CONCLUSION: Clinicians can reduce uncertainty by using clear communication, limiting interruptions during an NPA, and paying attention to contextual factors. Low information retention could possibly be improved by involving a family member and using visual aids or written information during the diagnostic disclosure. Finally, participants also appreciated being provided with neuropsychological feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of their cognitive profiles and with guidance on how to manage this diagnosis in their daily lives.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The focus group analysis approach has been described previously and appears valid to answer the research question.
“This approach has been described previously and appears valid to answer the research question.42 43”
From Development, evaluation and implementation of a digital behavioural health treatment for chronic pain: study protocol of the multiphase DAHLIA project (2022) · cites this paper as [42]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 33
- Authors
- Gruters, A. A. A., Christie, H. L., Ramakers, I. H. G. B., Verhey, F. R. J., Kessels, R. P. C., & de Vugt, M. E.
- Affiliations
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Center Limburg, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
- Corresponding author
- Ramakers, Inez H. G. B.
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Clinical Neuropsychologist
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-04-17
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1398-1414
- ISSN
- 0920-1637 (ISSN-L)
- 1385-4046
- 1744-4144
- OpenAlex
- W3017357689
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 3.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Clinical Neuropsychologist (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Noaber Foundation
- Alzheimer Nederland
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- neuropsychological assessment, diagnosis disclosure, memory clinics, cognitive impairment, patient experience, family members, uncertainty, knowledge application, information retention, communication with clinicians, dementia diagnosis
- MeSH terms
- Family, Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Disclosure, Qualitative Research, Cognitive Dysfunction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
