Psychological Impact of Parkinson Disease Delusions on Spouse Caregivers: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing research on carers of people with Parkinson's disease (PD) experiences. However, the impact on carers by PD delusions is not specifically examined. We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews of spouse carers of PD patients with delusions. Thematic analysis was employed using MAXQDA 2018. Twelve spouse participants (SPs) were interviewed. Four themes emerged: Managing incredulity: trying to make sense of delusion content; Hypervigilance: constant alertness to bizarre and threatening discourse and behavior; Defensive strategizing: anticipating delusions and potential consequences; Concealing and exposing: ambivalence about disclosing the effect of delusions yet wanting support. SPs reported effects on their emotional well-being and marital relationship and challenges to an orderly, predictable life. SPs were reluctant to share their experiences due to delusion content (often infidelity and sexual in nature) and a desire to protect their spouses' image. SPs' awareness of the potential for delusional thought was low prior to their occurrence. Conclusions: education surrounding potential neurobehavioral changes should occur for patients and carers. Clinicians should be aware that the impact of delusions on carers is often greater than disclosed in clinical interviews. Interdisciplinary teams speaking separately to spousal carers may improve disclosure and delivery of appropriate psychological support.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".