SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Physiotherapists' and occupational therapists' experiences of working with people with atypical Parkinson's conditions.

Disabil Rehabil · 2025-02-17

DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2025.2462200PMID: 39960087

Check source for accessJournal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to gain deeper understanding of the experiences of occupational therapists and physiotherapists, working with those with atypical Parkinson's conditions, within the UK. A literature review identified that research into these roles is limited and unrepresentative.Materials and methodsA qualitative approach, informed by hermeneutic phenomenology was used to guide the study design. Semi-structured, online interviews, focussed on therapists' experiences of success and challenge, were completed with six physiotherapists, and three occupational therapists, experienced in working within this area of practice. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and were analysed using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsFour themes were generated and discussed: (1) maintaining hope without giving false hope, (2) maintaining quality of life despite deterioration, (3) maintaining empowerment and choice despite loss of control, (4) maintaining effective working despite variable resources.ConclusionsParticipants' accounts of success and challenge reveal a complex landscape of tensions that must be negotiated and balanced within their practice. Insight is gained into some of the mechanisms involved in maintaining a patient's hope, their ability to participate and their sense of identity, despite the devastating losses associated with these conditions.

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.