SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Quality of life implications for elevated trait impulsivity in people with Parkinson's disease.

Qual Life Res · 2023-01-13

DOI: 10.1007/s11136-022-03321-wPMID: 36637657

Open accessresearch-article; Journal Article; Observational StudyOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundSeveral non-motor features of Parkinson's disease (PD) are known to adversely affect patient health-related quality of life (HRQL). However, the specific impact of neuropsychiatric complications, such as impulsive behaviour, is yet to be elucidated.ObjectivesThe present cross-sectional, observational study aimed to investigate the effects of heightened trait impulsivity on HRQL in individuals with PD.MethodsA total of 322 people with idiopathic PD were sequentially recruited from Movement Disorder clinics across Australia. Trait impulsivity in patients was determined by Barratt's Impulsiveness Scale Version 11 (BIS-11), and grouped into tertiles (low, medium, and high). Patient HRQL was determined by the 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39), complemented by the Cambridge Behavioural Inventory-Revised (CBI-R) indicating caregivers' perception of patient HRQL.ResultsWhen total BIS-11 scores were grouped into tertiles, patient perceived and caregiver-perceived HRQL were 1.7-fold (p ConclusionThese findings suggest that increasing trait impulsivity is significantly associated with patient perceived HRQL in PD. Improved knowledge and recognition of subclinical impulsivity may guide clinicians' treatment and reduce disease burden for patients experiencing PD symptoms.

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.