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
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.