Acceptability of a programme for safer mobility (INTEGRATE): Perspectives of people with Parkinson's disease and their care-partners.
Natalie E Allen, Annabel Darmali, Cecelia Koch and 9 others
PMID 40770967WHAT IT FOUND
People with Parkinson's and care-partners found a home-based fall prevention programme acceptable because therapists tailored it to their specific impairments and involved them in decision-making.
Barriers included fatalistic beliefs, stigma about home modifications, and difficulty forming new habits.
Key findings
01Participants valued the programme being tailored to their specific impairments and delivered in their home environment, which allowed therapists to contextualise mobility problems.
02Emotional and psychological barriers hindered engagement, including fatalistic beliefs about disease progression and reluctance to make home changes due to stigma or viewing them as an admission of disability.
03Care-partners played a critical supportive role by prompting exercise and safer mobility strategies, though some avoided prompting exercise to protect the relationship.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample consisted of volunteers who may have been more motivated than the general Parkinson's population, potentially skewing results towards positive engagement. Participants with severe cognitive impairment (MoCA < 5) were excluded, so the perspectives of those with the most advanced cognitive decline were not represented. Social desirability bias may have led participants to give positive responses to please the interviewer.
Declared interests
The study was funded by a Parkinson's NSW Research Grant, a University of Sydney Laffan Equity Prize, and The University of Sydney DVCR Support Fund. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret this study as evidence that the INTEGRATE programme reduces falls or improves mobility outcomes. This was a qualitative study exploring acceptability and experiences of a previous intervention, not a trial measuring clinical efficacy.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →