A Design to Investigate the Feasibility and Effects of Partnered Ballroom Dancing on People With Parkinson Disease: Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-help and physical leisure activities has become increasingly important in the maintenance of safe and functional mobility among an increasingly elderly population. Preventing the cycle of deterioration, falling, inactivity, dependency, and secondary complications in people with Parkinson disease (PD) is a priority. Research has shown that people with PD are interested in dance and although the few existing trials are small, initial proof of principle trials from the United States have demonstrated beneficial effects on balance control, gait, and activity levels. To our knowledge, there has been no research into long-term effects, cost effectiveness, the influence on spinal posture and turning, or the personal insights of dance participants. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the methodological feasibility of conducting a definitive phase III trial to evaluate the benefits of dance in people with PD. We will build on the proof of principle trials by addressing gaps in knowledge, focusing on areas of greatest methodological uncertainty; the choice of dances and intensity of the program; for the main trial, the availability of partners, the suitability of the currently envisaged primary outcomes, balance and spinal posture; and the key costs of delivering and participating in a dance program to inform economic evaluation. METHODS: Fifty participants (mild-to-moderate condition) will be randomized to the control (usual care) or experimental (dance plus usual care) groups at a ratio of 15:35. Dance will be taught by professional teachers in a dance center in the South of England. Each participant in the experimental group will dance with his or her spouse, a friend, or a partner from a bank of volunteers. A blinded assessor will complete clinical measures and self-reported ability at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months after randomization. A qualitative study of a subgroup of participants and partners will examine user's views about the appropriateness and acceptability of the intervention, assessment protocol, and general trial procedures. Procedures for an economic evaluation of dance for health care will be developed for the main trial. RESULTS: Recruitment began in January 2013 and the last participant is expected to complete the trial follow-up in June 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from our study may provide novel insights into the way people with PD become involved in dance, their views and opinions, and the suitability of our primary and secondary outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 63088686; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN63088686/63088686 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6QYyjehP7).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.064 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".