“Ups and Downs, Joys and Sorrows” – Assessment and Clinical Relevance of Patient Priorities in an Interdisciplinary Parkinson’s Disease Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Barriers to communication and inaccurate provider assumptions about patient priorities limit the delivery of comprehensive, high-quality, patient-centered care (PCC) to people with Parkinson's (PWP). This study aimed to analyze priorities of PWP using a qualitative, unstructured single-question survey and to test associations with validated quality of life (QOL) measures. Methods: During appointments at a subspecialty, interdisciplinary clinic, PWP (n=139) provided written responses to the prompt: "What is important for your care team to know about you?" Patient Health Questionnaire, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Hoehn and Yahr scales were obtained through retrospective chart review. Key qualitative themes were identified through grounded theory analysis, and associations with quantitative health measures were tested with correlation analyses. Results: Common themes included participant health (eg, PD-related goals and comorbidities), non-illness identities (eg, family or community role), and the psychosocial impact of PD (eg, losing independence and uncertainty). Positive sentiments (n=73), such as motivation and optimism, were more common than negative sentiments (n=45), such as loss and fear. There was moderate concordance between worsened mental health and uncertainty (rho=0.206, p=0.02) and inverse concordance between worsened mobility and gratitude (rho=-0.174, p=0.04). Conclusions: The range of priorities that PWP want to share with their care team is more diverse than that of common provider assumptions, is correlated with clinical outcomes such as mental health and mobility, and may not be captured by existing QOL assessment tools. An open-ended, qualitative prompt should be incorporated into routine specialist care for PWP as a valuable QOL indicator.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".