Barriers and Motivators to Engage in Exercise for Persons with Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise is increasingly being recognized as a key element in the overall management of persons living with Parkinson's disease (PD) but various (disease-specific) barriers may impede even motivated patients to participate in regular exercise. We aimed to provide a comprehensive review of the various barriers and motivators for exercise in persons with PD. We scrutinized data on compliance-related factors published in cross-sectional studies, randomized controlled trials and reviews. We classified the barriers and motivators to exercise from a patient perspective according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We present an overview of the large range of potential motivators and barriers for exercise in persons with PD. Healthcare professionals should consider a wide and comprehensive range of factors, in order to identify which specific determinants matter most for each individual. Only when persons with PD are adequately motivated in a way that appeals to them and after all person-specific barriers have been tackled, we can begin to expect their long-term adherence to exercise. Such long-term compliance will be essential if exercise is to live up to its expectations, including the hope that prolonged engagement in regular exercise might help to modify the otherwise relentlessly progressive course of PD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".