Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37213910›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2023

Need for personalized monitoring of Parkinson's disease: the perspectives of patients and specialized healthcare providers.

Luc J W Evers, José M Peeters, Bastiaan R Bloem, Marjan J Meinders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Economic evaluation of mHealth solutions in PD: where do we stand?Neurodegenerative disease management · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Luc J W EversCenter of Expertise for Parkinson & Movement Disorders, Department of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
José M PeetersScientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Healthcare), Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Bastiaan R BloemCenter of Expertise for Parkinson & Movement Disorders, Department of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Marjan J MeindersScientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Healthcare), Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Digital tools such as wearable sensors may help to monitor Parkinson's disease (PD) in daily life. To optimally achieve the expected benefits, such as personized care and improved self-management, it is essential to understand the perspective of both patients and the healthcare providers. Objectives: We identified the motivations for and barriers against monitoring PD symptoms among PD patients and healthcare providers. We also investigated which aspects of PD were considered most important to monitor in daily life, and which benefits and limitations of wearable sensors were expected. Methods: Online questionnaires were completed by 434 PD patients and 166 healthcare providers who were specialized in PD care (86 physiotherapists, 55 nurses, and 25 neurologists). To gain further understanding in the main findings, we subsequently conducted homogeneous focus groups with patients ( Results: One third of the patients had monitored their PD symptoms in the past year, most commonly using a paper diary. Key motivations were: (1) discuss findings with healthcare providers, (2) obtain insight in the effect of medication and other treatments, and (3) follow the progression of the disease. Key barriers were: (1) not wanting to focus too much on having PD, (2) symptoms being relatively stable, and (3) lacking an easy-to-use tool. Prioritized symptoms of interest differed between patients and healthcare providers; patients gave a higher priority to fatigue, problems with fine motor movements and tremor, whereas professionals more frequently prioritized balance, freezing and hallucinations. Although both patients and healthcare providers were generally positive about the potential of wearable sensors for monitoring PD symptoms, the expected benefits and limitations varied considerably between groups and within the patient group. Conclusion: This study provides detailed information about the perspectives of patients, physiotherapists, nurses and neurologists on the merits of monitoring PD in daily life. The identified priorities differed considerably between patients and professionals, and this information is critical when defining the development and research agenda for the coming years. We also noted considerable differences in priorities between individual patients, highlighting the need for personalized disease monitoring.

Indexed as

disease monitoringParkinson‘s diseasepersonalized careremote monitoringself-monitoringwearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID37213910
PMCPMC10192863

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.