IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0194971.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinicians’ perspectives on incidentally discovered silent brain infarcts – A qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Lester Y Leung
  • Paul K J Han
  • Christine Lundquist
  • Gene Weinstein
  • David E Thaler
  • David Kent

Abstract

Background: While silent brain infarcts (SBIs) in screened cohorts are associated with risk of symptomatic stroke and dementia, the clinical significance of incidentally discovered SBIs (id-SBIs) is unknown. Detection may offer an opportunity to initiate prevention measures, but uncertainties about id-SBIs may impede clinicians from addressing them and complicate further study of this condition. Methods and results: This study used semi-structured interviews of practicing clinicians. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. A constant comparative method was used to organize emergent themes and examine new themes. Purposeful sampling was employed to achieve participant diversity. Fifteen clinicians were interviewed. Emergent themes centered on uncertainty about id-SBIs, clinical decision making in response to uncertainty, and evidence needed to resolve uncertainty. All clinicians reported uncertainty about id-SBIs: diagnostic, prognostic, or therapeutic. Differential responses to uncertainties resulted in practice variation within and between specialties. Diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty discouraged disclosure of imaging findings to patients. Vascular neurologists viewed the prognostic significance of id-SBIs as similar to symptomatic stroke. Therapeutic uncertainty was common, but most participants endorsed using stroke secondary prevention strategies. Regarding future research, all internists indicated they would consider changing practices in response to observational studies, whereas half of the neurologists expressed reluctance to modify practices based on non-randomized data. Several expressed concerns about clinical trial feasibility and lack of equipoise. Conclusions: id-SBIs are a focus of uncertainty for clinicians, leading to practice variation. Future studies must address diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty to facilitate implementation of prevention strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Lester Y Leung & Paul K J Han & Christine Lundquist & Gene Weinstein & David E Thaler & David Kent, 2018. "Clinicians’ perspectives on incidentally discovered silent brain infarcts – A qualitative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-13, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0194971
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194971
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194971
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194971&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0194971?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0194971. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.