Symptomatic management of Parkinson’s disease (PD) is complex and many symptoms, especially non-motor symptoms, are not effectively addressed with current medications. In the US, cannabis has become more widely available for medical and recreational use, permitting those in the PD community to try alternative means of symptom control. However, little is known about the attitudes towards, and experiences with, cannabis use among those living with PD. To address this shortcoming, we distributed an anonymous survey to 7,607 people with PD in January 2020 and received 1339 responses (17.6%). 1064 complete responses were available for analysis. Respondents represented 49 states with a mean age of 71.2 years (±8.3) and mean PD duration of 7.4 years (±6.2). About a quarter of respondents (24.5%) reported cannabis use within the previous six months. Age and gender were found to be predictors of cannabis use in this sample (Age OR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.97; Male OR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.03). Users reported learning about cannabis use from the internet/news (30.5%) and friends or other people with PD (26.0%). Cannabis users were more likely to report insufficient control of their non-motor symptoms with prescription medications than non-users (p = 0.03). Cannabis was primarily used for PD (63.6%) and was most often used to treat nonmotor symptoms of anxiety (45.5%), pain (44.0%), and sleep disorders (44.0%). However, nearly a quarter of users (23.0%) also reported they had stopped cannabis use in the previous six months, primarily due to a lack of symptom improvement (35.5%). Three quarters of respondents (75.5%) did not use cannabis, primarily because there was a lack of scientific evidence supporting efficacy (59.9%). Our results suggest that the lack of formal guidance or research evidence about cannabis for PD may in part underlie inconsistencies in both use and reported effectiveness.

Despite data supporting the rapid adoption of telehealth in the delivery of clinical care in North America, the implementation of telehealth visits in clinical research studies has faced critical barriers. These challenges include: (1) variations in state licensure requirements for telehealth; (2) disparities in access to telehealth among disadvantaged populations; (3) lack of consistency among individual Investigational Review Boards (IRBs). Each barrier prevents the systematic conversion of research protocols to include telehealth visits. The Parkinson’s Foundation and members of the Parkinson Study Group submit this Comment to highlight current challenges to implementing telehealth visits for clinical research studies. Our objective is to provide a consensus statement emphasizing the urgent need for regulators to standardize adoption of telehealth practices and to propose recommendations to reduce the burden for implementation in existing research study protocols.

The wide application of patient engagement and its associated benefits has increased across government, academic and pharmaceutical research. However, neither an identified standard practice for the process of engagement, nor utilization of common metrics to assess associated outcomes, exists. Parkinson's Foundation developed a patient engagement framework and metrics to assess engagement within the academic research and drug development sectors. This approach was developed over the course of several years through assessing the literature, acquiring feedback from researchers and people with Parkinson's disease and adapting practices to be relevant and generalizable across patient engagement projects. This framework includes the: 1) creation of a scope of work, 2) establishment of guiding principles, 3) selection and training of participants, 4) co‐determination of project metrics, 5) execution of the project and 6) dissemination of project findings. Parkinson's Foundation has also worked with academic, government and pharmaceutical stakeholders to identify metrics that assess both the quality of patient engagement and outcomes associated with patient engagement on projects. By improving patient engagement project methodologies and metrics, global clinical trials can have access to evidence‐based patient engagement practices to more efficiently capture the needs of, and potentially benefit, the patient community.

| 975 LETTER TO THE EDITOR patient engagement projects. The patient advocates involved successfully changed study protocol, resulting in a complete restart of the study months after it originally launched. This project was so successful that we had many other patient engagement partnerships with the same company, including one that I engaged in. I took this example, along with others, and shared it with a couple hundred people in another division of the company to educate them about how best to collaborate with people in their disease communities. I have worked with multiple patient-focused organizations and with dozens of advocates of all backgrounds and perspectives. Most of these advocates and organizations welcome collegial fact-based dialogue as we try to solve the same problems. We do too. We encourage all readers to read our paper. Ask questions. Give feedback. And we encourage you to consider: just as people living with a condition are first and foremost people (never 'just patients'), with all the richness of life experiences and knowledge that we all have, similarly, 'academics' and 'charity officers' are more than just people doing a job. Many of them are driven to this field by firsthand experience with health conditions and motivated to stay in these fields and advocate alongside the community out of deep emotional connections. This work is important to all of us. We all have too much on the line.

Symptomatic management of Parkinson′s disease (PD) is complex and many symptoms, especially non-motor symptoms, are not effectively addressed with current medications. In the US, cannabis has become more widely available for medical and recreational use, permitting those in the PD community to try alternative means of symptom control. However, little is known about the attitudes towards, and experiences with, cannabis use among those living with PD. To address this shortcoming, we distributed an anonymous survey to 7,607 people with PD in January 2020 and received 1,064 complete responses for analysis (14%). Respondents represented 49 states with a mean age of 71.2 years (± 8.3) and mean PD duration of 7.4 years (± 6.2). About a quarter of respondents (24.5%) reported cannabis use within the previous six months. Users reported learning about cannabis use from the internet/news (30.5%) and friends or other people with PD (26.0%). Cannabis users were more likely to report insufficient control of their non-motor symptoms with prescription medications than non-users (p < 0.005). Cannabis was primarily used for PD (63.6%) and was most often used to treat nonmotor symptoms of anxiety (45.5%), pain (44.0%) and sleep disorders (44.0%). However, nearly a quarter of users (23.0%) also reported they had stopped cannabis use in the previous six months, primarily due to a lack of symptom improvement (35.5%). Three quarters of respondents (75.5%) did not use cannabis, primarily because there was a lack of scientific evidence supporting efficacy (59.9%). Our results suggest that the lack of formal guidance or research evidence about cannabis for PD may in part underlie inconsistencies in both use and reported effectiveness.