Knowledge, Responsibilities, and Peer Advice From Care Partners of Patients With Parkinson Disease Psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:Care partners (CPs) of individuals with Parkinson disease psychosis (PDP) experience increased strain and rely on informal support networks. The objective of this study was to characterize CP responsibilities, sources of support, and peer advice. Methods:This was a mixed-methods cross-sectional study. The sample was recruited from the online Fox Insight study cohort. CPs who indicated their care recipient suffered hallucinations and/or delusions were administered a questionnaire regarding their caregiving experience to person with PDP. A free-text question asked CPs to give advice to a hypothetical peer CP. Responses to multiple-choice questions were tabulated; responses to the free-text question were grouped into advice categories. Results:145 CP of individuals with PDP were included in this analysis, mean age (standard deviation, SD) 66.4 (9.4) years; 110 (75.9%) were women. Most (115, 79.3%) provided caregiving on a daily basis, with a range of responsibilities. Only 16 (11%) learned about PDP from a physician; communication challenges included perceived embarrassment or having to prioritize other issues in a limited appointment time. The most common peer advice was to alert the care recipient's neurologist (n= 38, 30.4%); only 8 (6.4%) suggested medication changes. Conclusion:CPs face challenges with clinician communication and learn about psychosis from a variety of informal sources. Few CPs advocate for medications to control PDP, instead preferring non-pharmacological management strategies. Peer advice favored alerting the care recipient's physician, suggesting that CPs do desire more information from the medical team.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".