Experiences of People Living with Parkinson’s Disease in Care Homes: A Qualitative Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incidence of disability secondary to Parkinson's disease is increasing faster globally than any other neurological condition. The diverse appearance of symptomatology associated with Parkinson's, and the degenerative nature and subsequent functional decline, often increase dependence on caregivers for assistance with daily living, most commonly within a care home setting. Yet, primary literature and evidence synthesis surrounding these unique and complex care needs, challenges and the lived experiences of this population living in long-term nursing or residential facilities remains sparce. The aim of this review is to synthesize qualitative literature about the lived experience of people with Parkinson's disease living in care home settings. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted in October 2023 across six different databases (CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Cochrane Library). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was used to guide this review. RESULTS: Five articles met the inclusion criteria. Four themes were identified following evidence synthesis: (1) Unique pharmacological challenges. (2) Transitioning and adapting to care home life and routines. (3) Dignified care within care homes. (4) Multidisciplinary care vacuum in care homes. CONCLUSION: This review revealed the significant and unique challenges for people with Parkinson's disease when transitioning into care homes. These are exacerbated by wider social care challenges such as staffing levels, skill mixes and attitudes as well as a lack of disease-specific knowledge surrounding symptomatology and pharmacology. The lack of multi-disciplinary working and risk-adverse practice inhibited person-centred care and autonomy and reduced the quality of life of people living with Parkinson's disease in care homes. Recommendations for practice highlight training gaps, the need for consistent and improved interdisciplinary working and better person-centred assessment and care delivery.
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 | 0.028 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".