Dataset Information

Parkinson's disease patients' needs during the COVID-19 pandemic in a red zone: A framework analysis of open-ended survey questions.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

During the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, a lockdown was imposed in Italy. The aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions, feelings and unmet needs of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients who experienced the 2-month lockdown in a "red zone" in the northern part of Italy during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Methods

The study had a descriptive design that used a cross-sectional online survey which included open-ended questions to elicit responses on the participant's feelings concerning their risk of contracting coronavirus, how their physical activity had changed, and their personal needs, dictated by their condition, which were not met in this pandemic period as compared to previous periods. Demographic data were analysed using descriptive frequencies, while the open-ended questions were analysed using thematic framework analysis.

Results

The study included 103 participants (63 men/40 women [61.17 vs. 38.83%]). Framework analysis led to the identification of four main themes: (i) fearing the risk of contracting coronavirus; (ii) reduction of physical activity; (iii) perception of the risk of not being able to access outpatient clinics or support services; and (iv) negative experiences of the important reduction in socialization. The perceptions of unmet needs appeared to be greater than the actual experience, particularly for the reduction in physical activity and the interruption of contacts with the neurologist and other specialists.

Conclusions

This study highlights how perceptions and actual experience shape the meaning of living with PD during the pandemic. Worth noting is the divergence between perceptions and real impact in some aspects of the COVID-19 outbreak.

SUBMITTER: Cavallieri F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8014253 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Parkinson's disease patients' needs during the COVID-19 pandemic in a red zone: A framework analysis of open-ended survey questions.

Cavallieri Francesco F Sireci Francesca F Fioravanti Valentina V Toschi Giulia G Rispoli Vittorio V Antonelli Francesca F Costantini Massimo M Ghirotto Luca L Valzania Franco F

European journal of neurology 20210206 10

<h4>Background and purpose</h4>During the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, a lockdown was imposed in Italy. The aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions, feelings and unmet needs of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients who experienced the 2-month lockdown in a "red zone" in the northern part of Italy during the COVID-19 outbreak.<h4>Methods</h4>The study had a descriptive design that used a cross-sectional online survey which included open-ended questions to elicit responses on the ...[more]

PMID: 33460507

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDichotomisation of statistical significance, rather than interpretation of effect sizes supported by confidence intervals, is a long-standing problem.MethodsWe distributed an online survey to clinical trial statisticians across the UK, Australia and Canada asking about their experiences, perspectives and practices with respect to interpretation of statistical findings from randomised trials. We report a descriptive analysis of the closed-ended questions and a thematic analysis of the open-ended questions.ResultsWe obtained 101 responses across a broad range of career stages (24% professors; 51% senior lecturers; 22% junior statisticians) and areas of work (28% early phase trials; 44% drug trials; 38% health service trials). The majority (93%) believed that statistical findings should be interpreted by considering (minimal) clinical importance of treatment effects, but many (61%) said quantifying clinically important effect sizes was difficult, and fewer (54%) followed this approach in practice. Thematic analysis identified several barriers to forming a consensus on the statistical interpretation of the study findings, including: the dynamics within teams, lack of knowledge or difficulties in communicating that knowledge, as well as external pressures. External pressures included the pressure to publish definitive findings and statistical review which can sometimes be unhelpful but can at times be a saving grace. However, the concept of the minimally important difference was identified as a particularly poorly defined, even nebulous, construct which lies at the heart of much disagreement and confusion in the field.ConclusionThe majority of participating statisticians believed that it is important to interpret statistical findings based on the clinically important effect size, but report this is difficult to operationalise. Reaching a consensus on the interpretation of a study is a social process involving disparate members of the research team along with editors and reviewers, as well as patients who likely have a role in the elicitation of minimally important differences.

Project description:BackgroundPatient satisfaction with in-person medical visits includes patient-clinician engagement. However, communication, empathy, and other relationship-centered care measures in virtual visits have not been adequately investigated.ObjectiveThis study aims to comprehensively consider patient experience, including relationship-centered care measures, to assess patient satisfaction during virtual visits.MethodsWe conducted a large survey study with open-ended questions to comprehensively assess patients' experiences with virtual visits in a diverse patient population. Adults with a virtual visit between June 21, 2017, and July 12, 2017, were invited to complete a survey of 21 Likert-scale items and textboxes for comments following their visit. Factor analysis of the survey items revealed three factors: experience with technology, patient-clinician engagement, and overall satisfaction. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test the associations among the three factors and patient demographics, clinician type, and prior relationship with the clinician. Using qualitative framework analysis, we identified recurrent themes in survey comments, quantitatively coded comments, and computed descriptive statistics of the coded comments.ResultsA total of 65.7% (426/648) of the patients completed the survey; 64.1% (273/426) of the respondents were women, and the average age was 46 (range 18-86) years. The sample was geographically diverse: 70.2% (299/426) from Ohio, 6.8% (29/426) from Florida, 4.2% (18/426) from Pennsylvania, and 18.7% (80/426) from other states. With regard to insurance coverage, 57.5% (245/426) were undetermined, 23.7% (101/426) had the hospital's employee health insurance, and 18.7% (80/426) had other private insurance. Types of virtual visits and clinicians varied. Overall, 58.4% (249/426) of patients had an on-demand visit, whereas 41.5% (177/426) had a scheduled visit. A total of 41.8% (178/426) of patients had a virtual visit with a family physician, 20.9% (89/426) with an advanced practice provider, and the rest had a visit with a specialist. Most patients (393/423, 92.9%) agreed that their virtual visit clinician was interested in them as a person, and their virtual visit made it easy to get the care they needed (383/421, 90.9%). A total of 81.9% (344/420) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their virtual visit was as good as an in-person visit by a clinician. Having a prior relationship with their virtual visit clinician was associated with less comfort and ease with virtual technology among patients (odds ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.98). In terms of technology, patients found the interface easy to use (392/423, 92.7%) and felt comfortable using it (401/423, 94.8%). Technical difficulties were associated with lower odds of overall satisfaction (odds ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.28-0.76).ConclusionsPatient-clinician engagement in virtual visits was comparable with in-person visits. This study supports the value and acceptance of virtual visits. Evaluations of virtual visits should include assessments of technology and patient-clinician engagement, as both are likely to influence patient satisfaction.

Project description:IntroductionIdentifying stakeholders' needs is crucial to informing decisions and policy development. This study aims to identify healthcare and social-related needs and effective strategies associated with COVID-19 from the first-person perspectives of patients and healthcare providers.MethodsCross-sectional online survey design including qualitative open-ended questions, conducted in primary care and hospital settings across Spain, with 12 out of 19 regions represented. Adults aged 18 years and older, who (a) resided in Spain and had a history of COVID-19 or (b) worked as healthcare providers delivering direct or indirect care for people with COVID-19 in Spanish primary care or hospitals during 2020 were eligible to participate. Recruitment was conducted via social-media networks (Twitter, LinkedIn, and WhatsApp) and communication channels of key organizations including patient and professional associations and groups. A total of 182 people were invited to complete the surveys and 76 people completed the surveys (71% women), of which 33 were home-isolated patients, 14 were hospitalized patients, 16 were primary care professionals, and 13 were hospital care professionals.ResultsA total of 327 needs and 86 effective strategies and positive aspects were identified across surveys and classified into the following overarching themes: (i) Accessibility, (ii) Basic needs, (iii) Clinical care, (iv) Person-and-family centered care, (v) Caring for the healthcare professional, (vi) Protocolization, information, health campaigns, and education, (vii) Resource availability, (viii) and Organizational needs/strategies.DiscussionFindings indicate the Spanish health and social care systems were generally unprepared to combat COVID-19. Implications for research, practice, and policy focus on integrating first-person perspectives as best practice to identify, prioritize and address needs to increase health and social care systems capacity and preparedness, as well as providing well-co-coordinated responses across government, healthcare, and non-government sectors to promote and protect the physical and mental health of all.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate differences in reported open defecation between a question about latrine use or open defecation for every household member and a household-level question.SettingRural India is home to most of the world's open defecation. India's Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) 2015-2016 estimates that 54% of households in rural India defecate in the open. This measure is based on a question asking about the behaviour of all household members in one question. Yet, studies in rural India find substantial open defecation among individuals living in households with latrines, suggesting that household-level questions underestimate true open defecation.ParticipantsIn 2018, we randomly assigned latrine-owning households in rural parts of four Indian states to receive one of two survey modules measuring sanitation behaviour. 1215 households were asked about latrine use or open defecation individually for every household member. 1216 households were asked the household-level question used in India's DHS: what type of facility do members of the household usually use?ResultsWe compare reported open defecation between households asked the individual-level questions and those asked the household-level question. Using two methods for comparing open defecation by question type, the individual-level question found 20-21 (95% CI 16 to 25 for both estimates) percentage points more open defecation than the household-level question, among all households, and 28-29 (95% CI 22 to 35 for both estimates) percentage points more open defecation among households that received assistance to construct their latrines.ConclusionsWe provide the first evidence that individual-level questions find more open defecation than household-level questions. Because reducing open defecation in India is essential to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals, and exposure to open defecation has consequences for child mortality and development, it is essential to accurately monitor its progress.Trial registration numberRegistry for International Development Impact Evaluations (5b55458ca54d1).

Project description:BackgroundChanging population demographics and technology developments have resulted in growing interest in the potential of consumer-facing digital health. In the United Kingdom, a £37 million (US $49 million) national digital health program delivering assisted living lifestyles at scale (dallas) aimed to deploy such technologies at scale. However, little is known about how consumers value such digital health opportunities.ObjectiveThis study explored consumers' perspectives on the potential value of digital health technologies, particularly mobile health (mHealth), to promote well-being by examining their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for such health solutions.MethodsA contingent valuation study involving a UK-wide survey that asked participants to report open-ended absolute and marginal WTP or willingness-to-accept for the gain or loss of a hypothetical mHealth app, Healthy Connections.ResultsA UK-representative cohort (n=1697) and a dallas-like (representative of dallas intervention communities) cohort (n=305) were surveyed. Positive absolute and marginal WTP valuations of the app were identified across both cohorts (absolute WTP: UK-representative cohort £196 or US $258 and dallas-like cohort £162 or US $214; marginal WTP: UK-representative cohort £160 or US $211 and dallas-like cohort £151 or US $199). Among both cohorts, there was a high prevalence of zeros for both the absolute WTP (UK-representative cohort: 467/1697, 27.52% and dallas-like cohort: 95/305, 31.15%) and marginal WTP (UK-representative cohort: 487/1697, 28.70% and dallas-like cohort: 99/305, 32.5%). In both cohorts, better general health, previous amount spent on health apps (UK-representative cohort 0.64, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.01; dallas-like cohort: 1.27, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.23), and age had a significant (P>.00) association with WTP (UK-representative cohort: -0.1, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.01; dallas-like cohort: -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01), with younger participants willing to pay more for the app. In the UK-representative cohort, as expected, higher WTP was positively associated with income up to £30,000 or US $39,642 (0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.4) and increased spending on existing phone and internet services (0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74). The amount spent on existing health apps was shown to be a positive indicator of WTP across cohorts, although the effect was marginal (UK-representative cohort 0.01, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.01; dallas-like cohort 0.01, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.02).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that consumers value mHealth solutions that promote well-being, social connectivity, and health care control, but it is not universally embraced. For mHealth to achieve its potential, apps need to be tailored to user accessibility and health needs, and more understanding of what hinders frequent users of digital technologies and those with long-term conditions is required. This novel application of WTP in a digital health context demonstrates an economic argument for investing in upskilling the population to promote access and expedite uptake and utilization of such digital health and well-being apps.

Dataset Information

Parkinson's disease patients' needs during the COVID-19 pandemic in a red zone: A framework analysis of open-ended survey questions.

Background and purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Parkinson's disease patients' needs during the COVID-19 pandemic in a red zone: A framework analysis of open-ended survey questions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets