The perspectives of patients with Parkinson's Disease: A qualitative systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Parkinson’s disease has considerable impact on the quality of life of both patients and their caregivers. Patients’ perspectives are a source of vital knowledge that informs health professionals’ ability to provide individualised and patient-centered care. Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to identify the perspectives of patients with Parkinson’s disease on treatment, care and rehabilitation.Methods: The authors conducted a systematic review and searched the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Scopus for original studies, in June 2020 (renewed December 21, 2021). Grey literature was searched at www.parkinson.org, http://www.epda.eu.com, www.apdaparkinson.org and in the OpenSIGLE and HMIC databases. We included studies focusing on patients with Parkinson’s disease aged 18 or older that reported patients’ perspectives on treatment, care and rehabilitation. Results were analysed using thematic synthesis. Results: Thirteen studies were included, each of them applying qualitative methods and including between 1 and 95 patients. The authors identified 17 descriptive themes which resulted in three analytic themes: Significance of self, Significance of informal caregivers and peers, and Significance of professionals.Conclusions: Our findings could be important in helping healthcare professionals plan and deliver treatment, care and rehabilitation based on patients’ priorities in the context of suffering from a chronic disease.
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 | 0.047 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".