ArticleBMJ open2025
Digital health technologies and self-efficacy in Parkinson's: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePrior research has identified that people with Parkinson's reporting lower levels of self-efficacy exhibit worsening motor and non-motor symptomology, reduced quality of life, and self-management. Our key objective was to conduct a scoping review examining the impact of digital health technologies on self-efficacy in people with Parkinson's.
designA scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework was undertaken. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar principally for grey literature were searched from 1 January 2008 to the 24th of July 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Primary studies which incorporated digital health technologies, measured self-efficacy and had a sample population of people with Parkinson's were searched. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Following identification of potentially eligible records, two independent reviewers undertook title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening. Data was extracted using our earlier published data extraction sheet which incorporated the Practical Reviews in Self-Management Support (PRISMS) taxonomy, and the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist. Data was extracted from a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and synthesised by describing themes, demographic data and numerical data.
resultsFrom 33 165 unique records following screening and independent review by two reviewers, 11 eligible records were found. Of these five elevated self-efficacy to a statistically significant level, five did not and one lowered self-efficacy. Of the studies which raised self-efficacy to a statistically significant level, all adopted a multimodal approach with a variety of devices. Thematically, these devices were focused on physical activity, falls/falls prevention, or both. The level of heterogeneity precluded comparisons between studies.
conclusionsThis scoping review identified significant knowledge and evidence gaps in the literature, and the limited number of eligible studies make these findings not generalisable. Future self-management research might benefit from also considering self-efficacy.
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.