Background Computer tools based on artificial intelligence could aid clinicians in memory clinics in several ways, such as by supporting diagnostic decision-making, web-based cognitive testing, and the communication of diagnosis and prognosis. Objective This study aims to identify the preferences as well as the main barriers and facilitators related to using computer tools in memory clinics for all end users, that is, clinicians, patients, and care partners. Methods Between July and October 2020, we sent out invitations to a web-based survey to clinicians using the European Alzheimer’s Disease Centers network and the Dutch Memory Clinic network, and 109 clinicians participated (mean age 45 years, SD 10; 53/109, 48.6% female). A second survey was created for patients and care partners. They were invited via Alzheimer Europe, Alzheimer’s Society United Kingdom, Amsterdam Dementia Cohort, and Amsterdam Aging Cohort. A total of 50 patients with subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, or dementia (mean age 73 years, SD 8; 17/34, 34% female) and 46 care partners (mean age 65 years, SD 12; 25/54, 54% female) participated in this survey. Results Most clinicians reported a willingness to use diagnostic (88/109, 80.7%) and prognostic (83/109, 76.1%) computer tools. User-friendliness (71/109, 65.1%); Likert scale mean 4.5, SD 0.7), and increasing diagnostic accuracy (76/109, 69.7%; mean 4.3, SD 0.7) were reported as the main factors stimulating the adoption of a tool. Tools should also save time and provide clear information on reliability and validity. Inadequate integration with electronic patient records (46/109, 42.2%; mean 3.8, SD 1.0) and fear of losing important clinical information (48/109, 44%; mean 3.7, SD 1.2) were most frequently indicated as barriers. Patients and care partners were equally positive about the use of computer tools by clinicians, both for diagnosis (69/96, 72%) and prognosis (73/96, 76%). In addition, most of them thought favorably regarding the possibility of using the tools themselves. Conclusions This study showed that computer tools in memory clinics are positively valued by most end users. For further development and implementation, it is essential to overcome the technical and practical barriers of a tool while paying utmost attention to its reliability and validity.

Introduction Clear communication of diagnostic test results and dementia diagnosis is challenging yet important to empower patients and care partners. A personalized diagnostic report could support the communication of dementia diagnostics and aid patients’ understanding of diagnosis. In this study, we aimed to design a diagnostic report in co‐creation with patients and care partners. Methods We used a mixed‐methods approach, combining surveys with focus groups in iteration. Phase 1 consisted of an international survey assessing needs among patients (n = 50) and care partners (n = 46), and phase 2 consisted of focus group meetings (n = 3) to co‐create the content and to hands‐on co‐design the layout of the diagnostic report with patients (n = 7) and care partners (n = 7). Phase 3 validated results from phase 2 in a survey among patients (n = 28) and care partners (n = 12), and phase 4 comprised final feedback by dementia (care) experts (n = 5). Descriptive statistics were used to report quantitative results and directed content analysis was used to analyze qualitative data. Results Most patients (39/50, 78%) and care partners (38/46, 83%) positively valued a diagnostic report to summarize test results. The report should be brief, straightforward, and comprise results of the diagnostic tests, including brain imaging and information on future expectations. Despite a clear preference for visual display of test results, several visualization options were deemed best and were equally comprehended. Discussion In this study, we developed a prototype of a personalized patient report through an iterative design process and learned that co‐creation is highly valuable to meet the specific needs of end‐users.

Background The paradigm shift towards earlier Alzheimer’s disease (AD) stages and personalized medicine creates new challenges for clinician-patient communication. We conducted a survey among European memory clinic professionals to identify opinions on communication about (etiological) diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention, and inventory needs for augmenting communication skills. Methods Memory clinic professionals (N = 160) from 21 European countries completed our online survey (59% female, 14 ± 10 years' experience, 73% working in an academic hospital). We inventoried (1) opinions on communication about (etiological) diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention using 11 statements; (2) current communication practices in response to five hypothetical cases (AD dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), subjective cognitive decline (SCD), with ( +) or without ( −) abnormal AD biomarkers); and (3) needs for communication support regarding ten listed communication skills. Results The majority of professionals agreed that communication on diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention should be personalized to the individual patient. In response to the hypothetical patient cases, disease stage influenced the inclination to communicate an etiological AD diagnosis: 97% would explicitly mention the presence of AD to the patient with AD dementia, 68% would do so in MCI + , and 29% in SCD + . Furthermore, 58% would explicitly rule out AD in case of MCI − when talking to patients, and 69% in case of SCD − . Almost all professionals (79–99%) indicated discussing prognosis and prevention with all patients, of which a substantial part (48–86%) would personalize their communication to patients’ diagnostic test results (39–68%) or patients’ anamnestic information (33–82%). The majority of clinicians (79%) would like to use online tools, training, or both to support them in communicating with patients. Topics for which professionals desired support most were: stimulating patients’ understanding of information, and communicating uncertainty, dementia risk, remotely/online, and with patients not (fluently) speaking the language of the country of residence. Conclusions In a survey of European memory clinic professionals, we found a strong positive attitude towards communication with patients about (etiological) diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention, and personalization of communication to characteristics and needs of individual patients. In addition, professionals expressed a need for supporting tools and skills training to further improve their communication with patients.