Patient and therapist perspectives on motor imagery training in Parkinson’s Disease: a qualitative descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Motor imagery is of increasing interest in Parkinson’s Disease (PD) rehabilitation. One of the benefits of motor imagery is that it can be safely carried out in an individual’s home. At present, there is little guidance for researchers and clinicians who wish to implement home-based motor imagery as a treatment tool for patients with PD. This study aimed to explore patient and therapist perspectives on home-based motor imagery training programs for individuals with PD. We sought to integrate these perspectives with the established literature to provide recommendations for the implementation of such programs. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 patients with PD, three occupational therapists, and three physical therapists. Interview transcripts were analysed using the Framework Method. Results A total of five themes were identified from interview transcripts: (1) compensatory strategies are common in PD management, (2) program design should accommodate for cognitive concerns, (3) apathy is a barrier to home-based participation, (4) a relevant program is an effective program, and (5) technology can facilitate home-based practice. Participants identified several ways in which a home-based motor imagery program could be designed to best meet the needs of the PD population. Conclusion Motor imagery has high potential as a home-based treatment tool for people with Parkinson’s Disease. Researchers and clinicians need to take disease-related cognitive changes and apathy into consideration by developing accessible programs that feel relevant to the patient and contain accountability measures.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".