Self-management interventions involving care partners of individuals with neurodegenerative movement disorders: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This scoping review aims to explore the components of existing self-management interventions involving care partners of individuals with neurodegenerative movement disorders (NMDs). The review seeks to describe the key components, categorize different types and approaches using the PRISMS taxonomy. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in five databases: SCOPUS, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase. Articles were included if they involved self-management interventions for adult care partners of individuals with NMDs. Data extraction was guided by the PRISMS, TEDSS and TIDieR frameworks, focusing on intervention characteristics, components, outcome measures, theories, and formats. RESULTS: The review included 34 articles, with most interventions targeting Parkinson's Disease. Interventions varied widely in structure, delivery format, setting and content. Psychological and internal strategies were the most frequently utilized components. Notably, only 11 interventions were specifically designed for care partners. CONCLUSION: This scoping review provides key insights into the diverse elements of self-management interventions for NMDs, including their structure, delivery format, and components. It highlights the lack of comprehensive dyadic interventions that support both individuals with NMDs and their care partners. Future research should explore the integration of personalization, communication training and dyadic coping strategies.
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 | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".