Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundParkinson disease monitoring is currently transitioning from periodic clinical assessments to continuous daily life monitoring in free-living conditions. Traditional Parkinson disease monitoring methods lack intraday fluctuation detection. Electronic diaries (eDiaries) hold the potential to collect subjective experiences on the severity and burden of motor and nonmotor symptoms in free-living conditions.ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop a Parkinson disease-specific eDiary based on ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) and to explore its validation.MethodsAn observational cohort of 20 patients with Parkinson disease used the smartphone-based EMA eDiary for 14 consecutive days without adjusting free-living routines. The eDiary app presented an identical questionnaire consisting of questions regarding affect, context, motor and nonmotor symptoms, and motor performance 7 times daily at semirandomized moments. In addition, patients were asked to complete a morning and an evening questionnaire.ResultsMean affect correlated moderate-to-strong and moderate with motor performance (R=0.38 to 0.75; PConclusionsWe presented a Parkinson disease-specific EMA eDiary. Correlations between given answers support the internal validity of the eDiary and underline EMA's potential in free-living Parkinson disease monitoring. Careful patient selection and EMA design adjustment to this targeted population and their fluctuations are necessary to generate robust proof of EMA validation in future work. Combining clinical Parkinson disease knowledge with practical EMA experience is inevitable to design and perform studies, which will lead to the successful integration of eDiaries in free-living Parkinson disease monitoring.
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.