Background Physiotherapy is a commonly prescribed intervention for people with Parkinson’s disease (PD). Conventional types of physiotherapy have been studied extensively, while novel modalities are being developed and evaluated. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional and more recent physiotherapy interventions for people with PD. The meta-analysis performed as part of the 2014 European Physiotherapy Guideline for PD was used as the starting point and updated with the latest evidence. Methods We performed a systematic search in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trials comparing any physiotherapy intervention with no intervention or sham treatment were included. Trials were classified into 12 categories: conventional physiotherapy, resistance training, treadmill training, strategy training, dance, martial arts, aerobic exercises, hydrotherapy, balance and gait training, dual tasking, exergaming, and Nordic walking. Outcomes included motor symptoms, balance, gait, and quality of life, and are presented as standardized mean differences. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to systematically appraise methodological quality. Results A total of 191 trials with 7998 participants were included. Conventional physiotherapy significantly improved motor symptoms, gait, and quality of life. Resistance training improved gait. Treadmill training improved gait. Strategy training improved balance and gait. Dance, Nordic walking, balance and gait training, and martial arts improved motor symptoms, balance, and gait. Exergaming improved balance and quality of life. Hydrotherapy improved balance. Finally, dual task training did not significantly improve any of the outcomes studied. Conclusions This meta-analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the evidence for the effectiveness of different physiotherapy interventions in the management of PD, allowing clinicians and patients to make an evidence-based decision for specific treatment modalities. Further work is needed to directly compare the relative efficacy of the various treatments.

Current medical management is only partially effective in controlling the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. As part of comprehensive multidisciplinary care, physical therapy and occupational therapy aim to support people with Parkinson's disease in dealing with the consequences of their disease in daily activities. In this narrative review, we address the limitations that people with Parkinson's disease may encounter despite optimal medical management, and we clarify both the unique and shared approaches that physical therapists and occupational therapists can apply in treating these limitations.

Telephone number: +31-0243615202 Word count for abstract: 200. Word count for text: 7143 words. Number of references: 139. Number of figures: 2. Number of tables: 2. AbstractIntroduction: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a chronic multisystem disorder that causes a wide variety of motor and non-motor symptoms. Over time, the progressive nature of the disease increases the risk of complications such as falls and loss of independence, having a profound impact on quality of life. The complexity and heterogeneity of symptoms therefore warrant a holistic, multidisciplinary approach. Specific healthcare professionals, e.g. the movement disorders neurologist and the PD nurse specialist, are considered essential members of this multidisciplinary team. However, with our increasing knowledge about different aspects of the disease, other disciplines are also being recognized as important contributors to the healthcare team. Areas covered: We describe a selection of these relatively newly-recognized disciplines, including the specialist in vascular medicine, gastroenterologist, pulmonologist, neuroophthalmologist, urologist, geriatrician/elderly care physician, palliative care specialist and the dentist. Furthermore, we share the view of a person with PD on how patients and caregivers should be involved in the multidisciplinary team. Finally, we have included a perspective on the new role of the movement disorder neurologist, with care delivery via "tele-neurology". Expert commentary: Increased awareness about the potential role of these 'new' professionals will further improve disease management and quality of life of PD patients.

Background: Optimal management in expert centers for Parkinson's disease (PD) usually involves pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, delivered by a multidisciplinary approach. However, there is no guideline specifying how this model should be organized. Consequently, the nature of multidisciplinary care varies widely. Objective: To optimize care delivery, we aimed to provide recommendations for the organization of multidisciplinary care in PD. Methods: Twenty expert centers in the field of multidisciplinary PD care participated. Their leading neurologists completed a survey covering eight themes: elements for optimal multidisciplinary care; team members; role of patients and care partners; team coordination; team meetings; inpatient versus outpatient care; telehealth; and challenges towards multidisciplinary care. During a consensus meeting, outcomes were incorporated into concept recommendations that were reviewed by each center's multidisciplinary team. Three patient organizations rated the recommendations according to patient priorities. Based on this feedback, a final set of recommendations (essential elements for delivery of multidisciplinary care) and considerations (desirable elements) was developed. Results: We developed 30 recommendations and 10 considerations. The patient organizations rated the following recommendations as most important: care is organized in a patient-centered way; every newly diagnosed patient has access to a core multidisciplinary team; and each team has a coordinator. A checklist was created to further facilitate its implementation. Conclusion: We provide a practical tool to improve multidisciplinary care for persons with PD at the organizational level. Future studies should focus on implementing these recommendations in clinical practice, evaluating their potential applicability and effectiveness, and comparing alternative models of PD care.

Background:Persons with Parkinson’s disease (PD) benefit from continuous exercise through participation in community-based exercise programs. However, community programs often lack PD-specific knowledge needed to provide safe and adequately dosed exercise.Objective:To evaluate the acceptability and safety of a PD-specific boxing program in the community.Methods:We developed specific educational resources to facilitate the boxing instructors. We also organized an educational and practical workshop for patients (n = 26) and instructors (n = 10), and assessed: (a) participants’ satisfaction; (b) instructors’ appreciation of the educational resources; and (c) numbers of patients interested in participating in the boxing program. After 18 months, patients and instructors completed a questionnaire evaluating: (a) participants’ satisfaction; (b) adverse events; (c) facilitators and barriers; and (d) proportion of participants at follow-up.Results:Twenty-six persons with PD (62% men) and 10 boxing instructors participated in the workshop. 81% of patients and 80% of instructors were very satisfied. Instructors found the educational materials “very helpful” (60%) or “helpful” (40%). Patients expressed a clear interest (54%) or possible interest (46%) in the program. We initiated classes with 10 participants. At 18-months follow-up, the program consisted of four boxing sessions/week, led by three instructors, with 40 participants. Seventeen patients responded to the questionnaire at follow-up. Participants were “very satisfied” (53%), “satisfied” (35%) and neither satisfied nor unsatisfied (12%) with the program. Adverse effects were mild (e.g., muscle aches). Transportation and physical disability were the main barriers for participation.Conclusions:The boxing program was well-received, with increasing numbers of participants at 18 months. The educational resources can support boxing instructors participating in current and future boxing classes being delivered in the community.

Background: Current guidelines recommend that every person with Parkinson's disease (PD) should have access to Parkinson's disease nurse specialist (PDNS) care. However, there is little scientific evidence of the cost-effectiveness of PDNS care. This hampers wider implementation, creates unequal access to care, and possibly leads to avoidable disability and costs. Therefore, we aim to study the (cost-)effectiveness of specialized nursing care provided by a PDNS compared with usual care (without PDNS) for people with PD in all disease stages. To gain more insight into the deployed interventions and their effects, a preplanned subgroup analysis will be performed on the basis of disease duration (diagnosis < 5, 5-10, or > 10 years ago). Methods: We will perform an 18-month, single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial in eight community hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 240 people with PD who have not been treated by a PDNS over the past 2 years will be included, independent of disease severity or duration. In each hospital, 30 patients will randomly be allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either care by a PDNS (who works according to a recent guideline on PDNS care) or usual care. We will use two co-primary outcomes: quality of life (measured with the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39) and motor symptoms (measured with the Movement Disorders Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III). Secondary outcomes include nonmotor symptoms, health-related quality of life, experienced quality of care, self-management, medication adherence, caregiver burden, and coping skills. Data will be collected after 12 months and 18 months by a blinded researcher. A healthcare utilization and productivity loss questionnaire will be completed every 3 months. Discussion: The results of this trial will have an immediate impact on the current care of people with PD. We hypothesize that by offering more patients access to PDNS care, quality of life will increase. We also expect healthcare costs to remain equal because increases in direct medical costs (funding additional nurses) will be offset by a reduced number of consultations with the general practitioner and neurologist. If these outcomes are reached, wide implementation of PDNS care will be warranted.

No abstract

No abstract