SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Italian validation of the Belastungsfragebogen Parkinson kurzversion (BELA-P-k): a disease-specific questionnaire for evaluation of the subjective perception of quality of life in parkinson's disease.

J Clin Mov Disord · 2017-07-25

DOI: 10.1186/s40734-017-0059-xPMID: 28770096

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundQuality of life (QoL) is the sense of well-being perceived by people. The improvement of parkinsonian patient's QoL is a crucial goal for clinicians involved in rehabilitative care. In order to provide an appropriate endpoint for the assessment of the effectiveness of rehabilitation treatments on QoL of patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD), in this study we have first translated and then validated the Belastungsfragebogen Parkinson kurzversion (BELA-P-k). This tool allows evaluating separately two crucial aspects: i) the loss of personal autonomy in activities of daily life and ii) the psychological and psychosocial impact of the disease.MethodsThe BELA-P-k was translated from Dutch into Italian. Subsequently 202 PD patients filled out the questionnaire. Patients were also evaluated by using the Parkinson Disease Questionnaire -39 (PDQ39), the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB).ResultsThe internal consistency for total of two different scores Bothered by (Bb) and Need for Help (NfH) was excellent (p = 0.91) for both categories. The correlation between Bb and NfH categories was significant and strong, very-strong, ranging from 0.78 to 0.88 (all p p ≤ 0.003).ConclusionsIn conclusion, we validated the BELA-P-k and demonstrated that it is an appropriate and potentially useful tool for assessing QoL in the management of PD.Trials registrationThis trial was retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03073044.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.