SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Primary prevention of Parkinson's disease: proceedings, the 8C's and a position statement from the Parkinson's disease prevention think tank.

NPJ Parkinsons Dis · 2026-06-23

DOI: 10.1038/s41531-026-01437-1PMID: 42336841

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

This Perspective outlines the challenges addressed at the first Annual Parkinson's Disease (PD) Prevention Think Tank, held on November 20-21, 2025 in Gainesville, Florida at the Fixel Institute. Over the course of two days, attendees from a wide variety of disciplines, including movement disorders neurology, environmental sciences, agriculture, public policy, public health, patient advocate groups, and more, discussed the current state of primary prevention research in PD, examined the lessons learned from prevention research in other disorders, and identified necessary regulatory and policy actions for moving toward primary prevention of PD. Eight key components of primary prevention are identified (8 C's): accurately Count incidence and prevalence, Conduct longitudinal cohort studies, induce policy Change, Counsel on individual behavior change, Communicate clearly with the general public and with key stakeholders, form multi-centric Coalitions across neurodegenerative disorders, apply Cross-disciplinary approaches, and provide sustained financial Commitment to support ongoing prevention and mitigation efforts. These proceedings serve as an initial call-to-action for at-risk individuals, the clinicians who care for them, and for policymakers.

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.