Delivering Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation Care in Parkinson’s Disease: An International Consensus Statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a complex neurodegenerative disorder impacting everyday function and quality of life. Rehabilitation plays a crucial role in improving symptoms, function, and quality of life and reducing disability, particularly given the lack of disease-modifying agents and limitations of medications and surgical therapies. However, rehabilitative care is under-recognized and under-utilized in PD and often only utilized in later disease stages, despite research and guidelines demonstrating its positive effects. Currently, there is a lack of consensus regarding fundamental topics related to rehabilitative services in PD. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the international Parkinson's Foundation Rehabilitation Medicine Task Force was to develop a consensus statement regarding the incorporation of rehabilitation in PD care. METHODS: The Task Force, comprised of international multidisciplinary experts in PD and rehabilitation and people directly affected by PD, met virtually to discuss topics such as rehabilitative services, existing therapy guidelines and rehabilitation literature in PD, and gaps and needs. A systematic, interactive, and iterative process was used to develop consensus-based statements on core components of PD rehabilitation and discipline-specific interventions. RESULTS: The expert-based consensus statement outlines key tenets of rehabilitative care including its multidisciplinary approach and discipline-specific guidance for occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech language pathology/therapy, and psychology/neuropsychology across all PD stages. CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitative interventions should be an essential component in the comprehensive treatment of PD, from diagnosis to advanced disease. Greater education and awareness of the benefits of rehabilitative services for people with PD and their care partners, and further evidence-based and scientific study are encouraged.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".