Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundChronically ill patients have to cope with transfers in the level or setting of care. Patients with prevalent disorders such as diabetes mellitus can be supported by their general practitioner (GP) when experiencing such care changes, as the GP already offers them disease-specific care. For community-dwelling patients with low-prevalent diseases such as Parkinson's disease (PD) - for which disease-specific care is provided by medical specialists - tailoring support to handle care changes requires more insight into patients' coping.ObjectivesTo explore PD patients' coping with care changes.MethodsA qualitative interview study was performed in 2013-2015 with a purposive sample of 16 community-dwelling PD patients in the Netherlands. A research assistant visited patients every month to explore if they had experienced a care change. If so, patients were interviewed face-to-face. An inductive approach to comparative content analysis was used.ResultsPatients encountered a variety of care changes such as changes in the level of unpaid care, the purchase of tools, modification of pharmacotherapy or admission to hospital. Being able to anticipate, initiate and independently handle care changes contributes to patients' sense of control and acceptance of the post-change situation. Patients, who commenced care changes themselves, had more realistic expectations of it.ConclusionCommunity-dwelling PD patients seem to be able to cope with the care changes they face. Offering education to facilitate their anticipation and initiation of changes in care and their ability to act independently, can contribute to patients' wellbeing. GPs can play a role in this.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.