SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Predictors of activity and participation across neurodegenerative conditions: a comparison of people with motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease.

BMC Neurol · 2018-02-17

DOI: 10.1186/s12883-018-1024-5PMID: 29454326

Open accessComparative Study; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundComparisons between neurological conditions have the potential to inform service providers by identifying particular areas of difficulty experienced by affected individuals. This study aimed to identify predictors of activity and participation in people with motor neurone disease (MND), people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and people with Parkinson's Disease (PD).MethodsThe Oxford Participation and Activities Questionnaire (Ox-PAQ) and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Survey (MOS SF-36) were administered by postal survey to 386 people with a confirmed diagnosis of MND, MS or PD. Data analyses focused on stepwise regression analyses in order to identify predictors of activity and participation in the three conditions assessed.ResultsThree hundred and thirty four participants completed the survey, a response rate of 86.5%. Regression analyses identified multiple predictors of activity and participation dependent on Ox-PAQ domain and disease group, the most prominent being social and physical functioning as measured by the MOS SF-36.ConclusionsResults indicate that the physical and social consequences of neurological illness are of greatest relevance to people experiencing the conditions assessed. Whilst the largely inevitable physical implications of disease take hold, emphasis should be placed on the avoidance of social withdrawal and isolation, and the maintenance of social engagement should become a significant priority.

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.