MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386767246 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0291357

Exploring public perceptions and awareness of Parkinson’s disease: A scoping review

2023· review· en· W4386767246 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sophie Crooks, Gillian Carter, Christine Brown Wilson, Lisa Wynne, Patrick Stark, Michail Doumas, Matthew Rodger, Emma O’Shea, Gary Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsPsycINFOCINAHLCritical appraisalSystematic reviewContext (archaeology)Quality of life (healthcare)PopulationMEDLINEMedicinePsychologyPublic healthGerontologyAlternative medicinePsychological interventionNursingPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a common neurological disease affecting around 1% of people above sixty years old. It is characterised by both motor and non-motor symptoms including tremor, slow movement, unsteady gait, constipation and urinary incontinence. As the disease progresses, individuals living with the disease are likely to lose their independence and autonomy, subsequently affecting their quality of life. People with PD should be supported to live well within their communities but there has been limited research regarding what the public know about PD. This review aims to develop an understanding of how the public view people living with PD, which has the potential to aid the development of an educational resource for the future to improve public awareness and understanding of PD. The purpose of this scoping review is to review and synthesise the literature on the public perception and attitudes towards people living with PD and identify and describe key findings. AIM: This scoping review aims to explore public perceptions and awareness of Parkinson's Disease among diverse populations, encompassing beliefs, knowledge, attitudes, and the broader societal context influencing these perceptions. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for ScR (PRISMA-ScR). Four electronic databases were searched systematically (CINAHL Plus, Medline, PsycINFO and International Bibliography of the Social Sciences). The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools (JBI) were used to assess the quality of primary studies, however, all relevant studies were considered regardless of their methodological quality. The 'Population-Concept-Context' framework was used in the screening process to identify eligible papers. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies were included in the review representing global research in quantitative (n = 12) and mixed methods approaches (n = 11). All 23 studies adopted some aspect of cross-sectional design. Three themes emerged from the studies, the first being public knowledge of symptoms, causes and treatment of PD and this highlighted a lack of understanding about the disease. Secondly, the review identified public attitudes towards PD, highlighting the social consequences of the disease, including the association between PD and depression, isolation and loss of independence. Finally, the third theme highlighted that there was a paucity of educational resources available to help increase public understanding of PD. CONCLUSION: Findings from this scoping review have indicated that public awareness of PD is a growing area of interest. To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review on this topic and review findings have indicated that public knowledge and attitudes towards PD vary internationally. The implications of this are that people with PD are more likely to be a marginalised group within their communities. Future research should focus on understanding the perception of the public from the perspective of people with PD, the development of interventions and awareness campaigns to promote public knowledge and attitude and further high-quality research to gauge public perceptions 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.145
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.145
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0220.018
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.474
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.086 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→