ArticleBMC neurology2024
The PRIME-NL study: evaluating a complex healthcare intervention for people with Parkinson's disease in a dynamic environment.
Article in BMC neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical trials in late-stage Parkinson's disease.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Review
- Searching for a needle in a haystack-ambulatory research in Parkinson's disease in Germany.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Effects of specialised physiotherapy on mortality in Parkinson's disease: a prospective observational study.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn innovative, integrative care model for people with Parkinson (PRIME Parkinson) has gradually been implemented in a selected region of the Netherlands since 2021. A prospective evaluation of this model (PRIME-NL study) was initiated in parallel, spanning the year prior to implementation (baseline) and the implementation period. Following publication of the original study protocol, the COVID-19 crisis delayed implementation of the full PRIME Parkinson care model by two years and hampered the recruitment of study participants.
objectiveTo describe which methodological adjustments were made to the study protocol because of these developments.
methodsWe compare various outcomes between a region where PRIME Parkinson care was implemented (innovation region) versus the rest of the Netherlands (usual care region). We use healthcare claims data of virtually all people with Parkinson in the Netherlands and annual questionnaires in a representative subsample of 984 people with Parkinson, 566 caregivers and 192 healthcare professionals. Four major methodological adjustments had to be made since publication of the original protocol. First, we extended the evaluation period by two years. Second, we incorporated annual process measures of the stage of implementation of the new care model. Third, we introduced a real-time iterative feedback loop of interim results to relevant stakeholders. Fourth, we updated the statistical analysis plan. DISCUSSION: This manuscript provides transparency in how the design and analyses of the evaluation study had to be adapted to control for external influences in a dynamic environment, including eruption of the COVID-19 crisis. Our solutions could serve as a template for evaluating other complex healthcare interventions in a dynamic environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.