Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundA greater understanding of the everyday experiences of people with Parkinson's disease (PD) and their carers may help improve clinical practice.ObjectiveThe Parkinson's Real-world Impact assesSMent (PRISM) study evaluated medication use, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the use of healthcare resources by people with PD and their carers.MethodsPRISM is an observational cross-sectional study, in which people with PD and their carers completed an online survey using structured questionnaires, including the Parkinson's Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (PDQ-39), Non-Motor Symptoms Questionnaire (NMSQuest) and Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI).ResultsData were collected from 861 people with PD (mean age, 65.0 years; mean disease duration, 7.7 years) and 256 carers from six European countries. People with PD reported a large number of different co-morbidities, non-motor symptoms (mean NMSQuest score, 12.8), and impaired HRQoL (median PDQ-39 summary score, 29.1). Forty-five percent of people with PD reported at least one impulse control behaviour. Treatment patterns varied considerably between different European countries. Levodopa was taken in the last 12 months by 85.9% of participants, and as monotherapy by 21.8%. Carers, who were mostly female (64.8%) and the partner/spouse of the person with PD (82.1%), reported mild to moderate burden (mean ZBI total score, 26.6).ConclusionsThe PRISM study sheds light on the lives of people with PD and those who care for them, re-emphasising the many challenges they face in everyday life. The study also provides insights into the current treatment of PD in Europe.
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.