SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Measuring what matters: Evaluating quality of life instruments through the eyes of people with Parkinson's disease.

J Parkinsons Dis · 2026-10-08

DOI: 10.1177/1877718x261480905PMID: 42847645

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

BackgroundMany instruments are used to assess quality of life in people living with Parkinson's disease. However, there is limited understanding of what people living with Parkinson's consider relevant and important when measuring quality of life.AimTo explore what people living with Parkinson's consider relevant and important in the assessment of quality of life.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 people living with Parkinson's disease. Participants completed eight instruments, which were used to guide discussion and reflection on what helps and what hinders measuring quality of life in a way that is meaningful to them.ResultsParticipants highlighted a number of features they consider important in the assessment of quality of life. These include being able to select from a wide range of response options, addressing the personal, emotional, and practical impacts of issues, using clear, specific language, and including a balance of questions that address both positive and negative aspects of the Parkinson's experience.ConclusionsThere is a need for instruments that reflect the complex and varied ways Parkinson's disease affects individuals. While existing questionnaires incorporate some features that support meaningful assessment, participants also identified features that may hinder the extent to which quality of life is adequately captured and that warrant further refinement. Incorporating feedback from people with lived experience may help inform future evaluation and refinement of quality of life measures in research and care.

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.