Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
MethodsThis descriptive study used a survey to explore health-care experiences. Questionnaires were mailed to participants living in rural Victoria. Eligibility criteria included having a diagnosis of PD or Parkinsonism and sufficient English to respond to the survey. The validated Patient-Centred Questionnaire for PD was used to measure health-care experiences. The questions are grouped accordingly under one of the 6 subscales or domains. Outcomes from the questionnaire included summary experience scores (SES) for 6 subscales; overall patient-centeredness score (OPS); and quality improvement scores (QIS). Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life using the disease-specific questionnaire PDQ39; disease severity using the Hoehn and Yahr staging tool; and disability using the Movement Disorders Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, part II.ResultsThirty-nine surveys were returned from the East Gippsland group and 68 from the rural group. The East Gippsland group rated significantly more positive the subscales "empathy and PD expertise," P=0.02, and "continuity and collaboration of professionals," P=0.01. The groups did not differ significantly for the remaining 4 subscales (P > 0.05) nor for the OPS (P=0.17). The QIS showed both groups prioritised the health-care aspect "provision of tailored information" for improvement. Quality of life was greater (P P=0.012) and disability were less (P=0.002) in the East Gippsland group.ConclusionParticipants who received health care from the East Gippsland program had better key health-care experiences along with better QOL and less impairment and disability. Participants prioritised provision of information as needing further improvement.
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.