Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the available evidence on the effectiveness of nonpharmacological rehabilitation interventions for people with Parkinson's disease, and identify future research needs. DESIGN: Electronic searches of four databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PsychLIT) 1980-2002; examination of reference lists of relevant papers. Controlled trials and observational studies were included. Data extraction and quality assessment of papers by two independent reviewers. A narrative review. SETTING: Rehabilitation interventions delivered either in subjects' own homes, or in clinical settings as outpatients. SUBJECTS: Community-living adults with Parkinson's disease. INTERVENTIONS: Physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, psychological counselling and support, and education. MAIN MEASURES: A range of outcomes: mobility, functional status, speech, swallowing, psychological well-being, as determined by the studies included in the review. RESULTS: Forty-four different studies (reported in 51 papers) were included (25 physiotherapy, 4 occupational therapy, 10 speech and language therapy, 3 psychological counselling, 1 educational, 1 multidisciplinary). All studies, except one, reported improvements on at least one outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: Findings may reflect publication bias, but suggest interventions can affect patients' lives for the better in a variety of ways. It is difficult to interpret the clinical importance of statistically significant improvements reported in most studies. There is a need for methodologically more robust research with meaningful follow-up periods, designed in a manner that separates specific and nonspecific effects. Cost-effectiveness evidence is required to provide clear guidance on service extensions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gage et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: