Strategy Use Among People With Parkinson's Disease During the Weekly Calendar Planning Activity.
Kathleen Best, Noelle Casem, Tasha Doty and 2 others
Crossing off items, entering fixed appointments first, crossing off free day, and self-checking related to higher accuracy for people with Parkinson's, but more strategies meant longer time with no efficiency gain.
For those with mild cognitive impairment, strategy use did not relate to performance.
Key findings
1Crossing off entered appointments, entering fixed appointments first, crossing off the free day, and self-checking each related to higher accuracy in the weekly calendar task.
2Using more strategies correlated with higher accuracy and longer total time, but strategy use did not relate to efficiency in any group.
3The PD–NC group had higher accuracy and used more strategies than the PD–MCI group, but among PD–MCI participants, strategy use and task performance were not related.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat 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
Small sample per group (27 PD–NC, 24 PD–MCI), limiting the ability to detect differences and generalise. Efficiency scores could not be calculated for six participants, reducing the ability to examine strategy–efficiency relationships. The sample was homogeneous in race (49 of 51 White), limiting generalisability. No correction for multiple comparisons was applied, increasing the chance of false-positive findings across the many strategy-by-performance comparisons. Cross-sectional, correlational design: strategy use and performance were measured at one time point, so causality cannot be inferred.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the correlation between strategy use and accuracy as proof that teaching these strategies will improve scheduling performance. This is a cross-sectional, correlational analysis of baseline data from a pilot trial, with no correction for multiple comparisons and a small, racially homogeneous sample. The PD–MCI null finding may reflect that these participants did not use the strategies, not that the strategies would not help them.
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 →