NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundOlder people experience multiple barriers to enrolment in clinical trials. Caregivers play an important role in supporting patients with Parkinson's disease. Understanding the experiences of patients and caregivers who participate in trials is important to inform the design of future studies and identify problems with recruitment and retention.ObjectiveTo systematically review and synthesize qualitative studies exploring the experiences of participating in clinical trials from the perspectives of patients with Parkinson's disease and their caregivers.MethodsTwo reviewers independently searched the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane, and CINAHL. The reference lists of all selected papers were screened for additional studies. Articles meeting predefined eligibility criteria were included in the synthesis. Methodological quality of each study was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Checklist. Included study findings were synthesized using the principles of thematic analysis.ResultsEleven studies were included. Five key themes were identified: positive experiences of participating in research, assessment completion, motivators, enablers, and barriers. Positive experiences of participating in studies were linked to social interaction with other patients, building trust with the researchers, and expertise of the research team.ConclusionsThis review supports literature highlighting the important role of caregivers in supporting patients with Parkinson's disease. Future studies are needed to further examine their perspectives on participating in research.
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.