Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundQuality of life (QoL) is a commonly used outcome measure in people with chronic neurological diseases (CND). As valuable as QoL is, it does not take into account aspects of subjective well-being (SWB) such as subjective happiness, meaning in life, life satisfaction and hope; all constructs that are considered central to well-being.ObjectivesThe goal was to assess how the different aspects of SWB are altered in Parkinson's disease (PD) and dystonia relative to healthy controls (HCs) and to identify the most important predictors of different dimensions of SWB in PD and dystonia.MethodsEighty-two people with PD, 63 with dystonia, and 50 HCs were surveyed using various measures of SWB.ResultsPeople with PD and dystonia had significantly lower satisfaction with life than HCs, with self-esteem and loneliness being significant covariates. Although people with PD and dystonia had significantly less meaning in life, they still sought meaning in life as much as HCs. Self-esteem, resilience and neuroticism were significant covariates for the presence of "meaning in life." There were no significant group differences in subjective happiness or hope. In people with PD, mood (depression and anxiety), personality traits (extraversion and self-esteem), disease duration, and pain/discomfort were significant predictors of various measures of SWB. The main significant predictor of SWB in dystonia was depression, which predicted 49% of the variance in subjective happiness.ConclusionsThese results emphasize the importance of SWB as a field of investigation and clinical care in the management of people with PD and dystonia.
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.