Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33208135›Full record

ArticleBMC neurology2020

Parkinson's disease: current assessment methods and wearable devices for evaluation of movement disorder motor symptoms - a patient and healthcare professional perspective.

Ghayth AlMahadin, Ahmad Lotfi, Eva Zysk, Francesco Luke Siena, Marie Mc Carthy, Philip Breedon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ghayth AlMahadinSchool of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Clifton Lane, Nottingham, NG11 8NS, UK.
Ahmad LotfiSchool of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Clifton Lane, Nottingham, NG11 8NS, UK.
Eva ZyskDepartment of Psychology, University of British Columbia in Vancouver, West Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Francesco Luke SienaSchool Of Architecture Design & Built Environment, Nottingham Trent University, Goldsmith Street, Nottingham, NG1 4FQ, UK.
Marie Mc CarthyICON PLC., South County Business Park, Dublin, Ireland.
Philip BreedonSchool of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Clifton Lane, Nottingham, NG11 8NS, UK. philip.breedon@ntu.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParkinson's disease is the second most common long-term chronic, progressive, neurodegenerative disease, affecting more than 10 million people worldwide. There has been a rising interest in wearable devices for evaluation of movement disorder diseases such as Parkinson's disease due to the limitations in current clinic assessment methods such as Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and the Hoehn and Yahr (HY) scale. However, there are only a few commercial wearable devices available, which, in addition, have had very limited adoption and implementation. This inconsistency may be due to a lack of users' perspectives in terms of device design and implementation. This study aims to identify the perspectives of healthcare professionals and patients linked to current assessment methods and to identify preferences, and requirements of wearable devices.

methodsThis was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews followed by focus groups. Transcripts from sessions were analysed using an inductive thematic approach.

resultsIt was noted that the well-known assessment process such as Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) was not used routinely in clinics since it is time consuming, subjective, inaccurate, infrequent and dependent on patients' memories. Participants suggested that objective assessment methods are needed to increase the chance of effective treatment. The participants' perspectives were positive toward using wearable devices, particularly if they were involved in early design stages. Patients emphasized that the devices should be comfortable, but they did not have any concerns regarding device visibility or data privacy transmitted over the internet when it comes to their health. In terms of wearing a monitor, the preferable part of the body for all participants was the wrist. Healthcare professionals stated a need for an economical solution that is easy to interpret. Some design aspects identified by patients included clasps, material choice, and form factor.

conclusionThe study concluded that current assessment methods are limited. Patients' and healthcare professionals' involvement in wearable devices design process has a pivotal role in terms of ultimate user acceptance. This includes the provision of additional functions to the wearable device, such as fall detection and medication reminders, which could be attractive features for patients.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceWearable Electronic DevicesDelivery of Health CareFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicParkinson DiseaseQualitative ResearchFocus groupsHealthcare professionalsInterviewsParkinson’s diseasePatientsPreferencesQualitative analysisWearable devices

Identifiers

PMID33208135
PMCPMC7677815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.