Community-Based Exercise Programming for Individuals with Parkinson's Disease: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundParkinson's disease (PD) is a neurological disorder that significantly impacts individuals, their families, and the healthcare system. Alongside drug therapies and surgical interventions, exercise has shown potential in improving motor and non-motor symptoms. This study explored perspectives of individuals with PD, care partners, and program providers regarding a community-based exercise program for PD.MethodsIndividuals with PD (Hoehn & Yahr stages I-III), on a stable medication regime, who participated in a PD-specific community-based exercise program twice weekly for at least 12 weeks, along with care partners and program providers were recruited. In-depth interviews were conducted with individuals with PD (n = 17), care partners (n = 7), and program providers (n = 3) from January to May 2024. Data were analyzed using an interpretative phenomenology analysis and mapped onto a behavior-change model. Two patient advisors and care partners assisted in data analysis and interpretation.ResultsParticipants highlighted the PD-specific nature of the program and group exercise benefits as key motivators. Pre-program challenges included difficulties obtaining a diagnosis, adapting to non-motor symptoms, medication side effects, and finding motivation. Post-program outcomes included symptom improvement, mutual motivation, community support, and reduced self-consciousness, prompting the recommendation of greater community awareness. Barriers to participation included transportation difficulties and cost. These findings suggest addressing barriers is essential to enhance accessibility and program benefits.ConclusionsThe PD-specific exercise program was perceived as beneficial to overall health and wellness, providing physical, emotional, and social benefits. A lack of awareness about the significance of exercise in PD remains a critical challenge.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".