NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundDebilitating problems with hand function experienced by people with Parkinson's disease (PD) can worsen during multitasking.PurposeTo investigate the effects of dual-task interference on a pegboard task in people with mild to moderately severe PD.Study designDescriptive analysis.MethodsA secondary analysis of baseline data from the ParkinsonNet physiotherapy study conducted in 2006 in the Netherlands. The 9-hole peg test was performed with the more affected hand under single- and dual-task conditions. In dual-task trials, a cognitive task was added. The patient specific index-Parkinson's disease identified two functional priority groups-those reporting arm and hand problems as a priority for allied health management ("upper extremity priority") and those prioritizing other issues ("other priority"). We investigated differences in single- and dual-task performance at different levels of disease severity (Hoehn and Yahr stage) and for the two priority groups, and calculated the dual-task effect.ResultsParticipants were 566 people with PD (Hoehn and Yahr stages I-IV). Dual-task interference occurred at each disease stage. Significant interactions existed between the task condition and disease severity (F (3, 559) = 4.28, p = 0.005) and task condition and priority group (F (1, 561) = 4.44, p = 0.036). Dual-task interference was greater in participants with more advanced disease or those prioritizing upper extremity problems.ConclusionWe described the effects of dual-task interference on more affected hand performance of a standardized dexterity test in a broad sample of people with PD. Dual-task interference may impact the daily lives of people with PD, especially those with more severe disease or who report arm and hand problems. It is important for clinicians to consider dual-task interference during upper extremity assessment and treatment.
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.