Neurodegenerative and cerebrovascular research often identifies biomarkers that can confirm disease presence or indicate risk for future clinical symptoms. Expert guidance counsels caution when disclosing individual research results (IRR) because results may not directly inform prognosis or clinical management. Most empirical work on stakeholder attitudes about IRR has focused on Alzheimer disease (AD). The United States CADASIL Consortium (USCC) sought to characterize attitudes toward IRR in research on Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy with Subcortical Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL), a dominantly inherited form of vascular dementia, because AD-focused guidance may not generalize to dominantly inherited disorders.
USCC investigators surveyed research participants using three 5-point Likert items and one open-ended question to assess attitudes toward returning IRR. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the Likert items. For one item, the distribution of responses was directly compared with responses from a previously surveyed AD participant sample. Open-ended responses were analyzed using qualitative content analysis to identify common themes.
The manuscript reports 152 survey responses. The Western Clinical Group Institutional Review Board provided ethical approval. The authors declared no competing interests.
Among the 152 respondents, the highest-rated reason to return IRR was to “learn about my disease and its predicted course.” When asked about which types of results they would most want returned, participants ranked imaging/MRI results and cognitive testing results highest. Hypothetical negative outcomes associated with disclosure (for example, potential emotional distress or uncertain clinical implications) were rated as a little to somewhat concerning rather than highly concerning.
In direct comparison with an AD participant survey, USCC respondents rated reasons to return IRR higher overall. The authors report statistically significant differences between USCC and AD respondents for seven of eight items evaluated in that comparison.
Open-ended answers underwent qualitative content analysis. The most frequently coded theme was that returning IRR would “help improve my health and well-being.” Other qualitative responses supported participants’ interest in receiving results and suggested that personal utility and information about disease course motivated that interest. The manuscript provides these qualitative findings as supporting evidence for the generally positive attitudes toward disclosure observed in the quantitative items.
The study includes a direct distributional comparison on one survey item between USCC respondents and an AD participant sample. USCC participants rated reasons to return IRR more highly than the AD sample, with statistically significant differences on seven of eight compared items. The authors interpret this as evidence that attitudes in a dominantly inherited vascular dementia cohort may differ meaningfully from attitudes observed in AD-focused samples.
Most respondents in this CADASIL research cohort expressed support for disclosure of IRR upon participant request. The highest priority reasons and preferred result types suggest that participants seek information they perceive as informative about disease presence and prognosis, especially MRI and cognitive testing results. Respondents reported only mild to moderate concern about potential negative consequences of disclosure.
The authors suggest these findings could inform IRR guidance for CADASIL and potentially other dominantly inherited conditions, and they note the relevance for ongoing investigations into the personal utility of returning research results. The study highlights a participant-centered perspective that may warrant consideration when policy makers and investigators design IRR processes in similar research contexts.
The Western Clinical Group IRB approved the work. The authors declared no competing interests. Funding support was acknowledged from the National Institutes of Health (RF1AG074608). The manuscript states that data produced in the study may be made available upon reasonable request to the authors.