SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Knowledge, Responsibilities, and Peer Advice From Care Partners of Patients With Parkinson Disease Psychosis.

Front Neurol · 2021-02-01

DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.633645PMID: 33597918

Open accessbrief-report; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Introduction: Care partners (CPs) of individuals with Parkinson disease psychosis (PDP) experience increased strain and rely on informal support networks. The objective of this study was to characterize CP responsibilities, sources of support, and peer advice. Methods: This was a mixed-methods cross-sectional study. The sample was recruited from the online Fox Insight study cohort. CPs who indicated their care recipient suffered hallucinations and/or delusions were administered a questionnaire regarding their caregiving experience to person with PDP. A free-text question asked CPs to give advice to a hypothetical peer CP. Responses to multiple-choice questions were tabulated; responses to the free-text question were grouped into advice categories. Results: 145 CP of individuals with PDP were included in this analysis, mean age (standard deviation, SD) 66.4 (9.4) years; 110 (75.9%) were women. Most (115, 79.3%) provided caregiving on a daily basis, with a range of responsibilities. Only 16 (11%) learned about PDP from a physician; communication challenges included perceived embarrassment or having to prioritize other issues in a limited appointment time. The most common peer advice was to alert the care recipient's neurologist (n = 38, 30.4%); only 8 (6.4%) suggested medication changes. Conclusion: CPs face challenges with clinician communication and learn about psychosis from a variety of informal sources. Few CPs advocate for medications to control PDP, instead preferring non-pharmacological management strategies. Peer advice favored alerting the care recipient's physician, suggesting that CPs do desire more information from the medical team.

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.