NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectivesGovernment-enforced lockdown restrictions associated with preventing the spread of the COVID-19 virus had a series of unintended, negative effects. One group of individuals whose physical and mental health was significantly and disproportionately impacted were those with Parkinson's. However, research has been mainly cross-sectional, with no previous study qualitatively following up participants through both lockdowns and the easing of restrictions. Consequently, this study aimed to provide a detailed understanding of the experience of lockdowns and the easing of restrictions on the physical and mental health of people with Parkinson's.MethodData from semi-structured interviews collected at four time points across an 18-month period (May 2020 - September 2021) from the same participants (six men and four women) were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis.ResultsThree themes were derived: (1) Wrestling with a Parkinson's identity, agency and control during the pandemic; (2) The encroachment and acceleration of a Parkinson's future; and (3) Recalibrating priorities from COVID-19 to Parkinson's.ConclusionAs currently the only published study to provide an in-depth longitudinal analysis with this population, we used a more dynamic theoretical account, Strauss and Corbin's theory of illness trajectories, to understand the findings and suggest ways of supporting individuals with Parkinson's in this stage of the pandemic. The scale and breadth of the support needed is a significant challenge for current statutory systems.
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.