Open Access

Italian validation of the Belastungsfragebogen Parkinson kurzversion (BELA-P-k): a disease-specific questionnaire for evaluation of the subjective perception of quality of life in parkinson’s disease

  • Paola Ortelli1Email author,
  • Roberto Maestri2,
  • Marianna Zarucchi1,
  • Veronica Cian1,
  • Elisa Urso1,
  • Francesca Giacomello1,
  • Davide Ferrazzoli1 and
  • Giuseppe Frazzitta1
Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders20174:12

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40734-017-0059-x

Received: 12 March 2017

Accepted: 1 June 2017

Published: 25 July 2017

Abstract

Background

Quality of life (QoL) is the sense of well-being perceived by people. The improvement of parkinsonian patient’s QoL is a crucial goal for clinicians involved in rehabilitative care. In order to provide an appropriate endpoint for the assessment of the effectiveness of rehabilitation treatments on QoL of patients with Parkinson’s Disease (PD), in this study we have first translated and then validated the Belastungsfragebogen Parkinson kurzversion (BELA-P-k). This tool allows evaluating separately two crucial aspects: i) the loss of personal autonomy in activities of daily life and ii) the psychological and psychosocial impact of the disease.

Methods

The BELA-P-k was translated from Dutch into Italian. Subsequently 202 PD patients filled out the questionnaire. Patients were also evaluated by using the Parkinson Disease Questionnaire −39 (PDQ39), the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB).

Results

The internal consistency for total of two different scores Bothered by (Bb) and Need for Help (NfH) was excellent (p = 0.91) for both categories. The correlation between Bb and NfH categories was significant and strong, very-strong, ranging from 0.78 to 0.88 (all p < 0.0001). Finally, the value of Spearman r for the relationship between Bb and NfH items and PDQ 39 values were significant (p ≤ 0.003).

Conclusions

In conclusion, we validated the BELA-P-k and demonstrated that it is an appropriate and potentially useful tool for assessing QoL in the management of PD.

Trials registration

This trial was retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03073044.

Keywords

Quality of life Wellbeing Rehabilitation treatment

Background

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a chronic and neurodegenerative disorder characterized by motor and non-motor symptoms. An impaired ability to acquire and express automatic actions, rigidity, resting tremor, bradykinesia, hypokinesia and postural instability are the cardinal motor symptoms of the disease. However, other non-motor cognitive, emotional and motivational symptoms, such as dysexecutive syndrome, mood dysregulation disorders, anxiety and behavioural alterations affect PD patients [1, 2].

The interaction between these motor and non-motor symptoms is responsible for a negative impact on patients’ daily life. Indeed, a chronic condition such as PD affects the motor abilities, the cognitive domains and the social functioning, which are features that equally contribute to determine the subjects’ quality of life (QoL) [35].

QoL is the sense of well-being perceived by people and it depends not only on the presence or absence of a disease, but also on personal, social and environmental factors [6, 7]. An improvement in patients QoL is generally considered a crucial goal for the clinicians.

As a matter of fact, there is not a cure for PD: dopamine replacement therapy (DRT) represents the gold standard for the medical treatment of PD, but its long-term use side effects (such as dyskinesia, motor fluctuations, dopamine dysregulation syndrome) and its inefficacy on the axial disturbances do not provide patients with a curative treatment. Surgical therapies for PD are now largely widespread, but at the moment, several critical issues regarding its use remain open [8]. Recently, rehabilitation has been highlighted as a feasible, effective and complementary treatment for the management of PD. In this course, several studies have suggested the need for a multidisciplinary and intensive rehabilitative approach in order to achieve better results in PD patients [913].

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of a specific rehabilitation treatment for PD, a valid and appropriate assessment of QoL is crucial.

There is a great number of available tools for the assessment of QoL. By using some of them, QoL has been assessed in the general population [14, 15]. Other tools have been specifically designed to assess QoL in specific conditions, such as PD [16, 17]: the most widely adopted tool for the evaluation of QoL in parkinsonian subjects in clinical and research context is the Parkinson Disease Questionnaire −39, PDQ39 [18].

The most important advantage of this questionnaire is the possibility to investigate specific sub-dominions of QoL and specific problems for each sub-dominion. The most important limit is the failure to distinguish two different aspects: the impact of loss of personal autonomy in daily life and the psychological and psychosocial impact of specific disease symptoms. The questionnaire Belastungsfragebogen Parkinson kurzversion (BELA-P-k) was developed by the Max- Planck Institute in Munich, as part of a standardized psychological diagnostic routine test for PD patients [19]. This dutch version validates separately the questionnaire, that has the advantage of to evaluate the above-mentioned both aspects [20].

Similar to the PDQ39, the BELA-P-k allows the evaluation of different aspects of the disease, but also the impact of loss of the personal autonomy in daily life and the psychological and psychosocial impact of specific disease symptoms. Thus, we believe that BELA-P-k could be an appropriate tool for evaluating the impact of rehabilitation treatment in QoL of parkinsonian patients.

The present study aims at translating the Bela-P-k for the Italian population and at testing both its internal consistency reliability and its validity.

Methods

Two hundred and two PD patients hospitalized at the Department of Parkinson’s disease and Brain Injury Rehabilitation of the “Moriggia-Pelascini” Hospital (Gravedona ed Uniti, Italy) were enrolled for the study. The Parkinsonian patients were diagnosed according to the UK Brain Bank criteria [21] and were evaluated by a neurologist with expertise in movement disorders field.

The exclusion criteria were: i) Mini Mental State examination (MMSE) [22] < 24, ii) any focal brain lesion detected in brain imaging studies (CT or MRI) performed in the previous 12 months, iii) other chronic diseases with a known impact in QoL.

The study design and protocol were approved by the local Ethics Committee (Comitato Etico Interaziendale delle Province di Lecco, Como e Sondrio - Italy) and were in accordance with the World Medical Association’s code of Ethics (Declaration of Helsinki, 1967). The clinicians explained the study protocol. A written informed consent that was obtained by the patients before their participation in the study. This trial was retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03073044.

Study instruments and data collection

The patients’ evaluation was performed at admission to the hospital: it included a neurological and neuropsychological examination in order to define the disease stage in accordance with the Hoehn & Yahr (H & Y) classification and assess the following measures: the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), the MMSE and the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) [23] the PDQ39 and the Bela-P-k. All patients were assessed in the morning, medication “on”-state, 1 h after they had taken the first dopaminergic drug dose.

The BELA-P-k questionnaire was translated from Deutch into Italian, by using the translation and back-translation method and following the guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of QoL measures defined by Guyatt [24] and by Guillemin and colleagues [25].

The validation was determined by comparing the outcome with the PDQ-39.

The BELA-P-k consists of 19 items grouped into 4 subscales:
  1. 1.

    Achievement capability/physical symptoms (Questions 1–5)

     
  2. 2.

    Fear/emotional symptoms (Questions 6–9)

     
  3. 3.

    Social functioning (Questions 10–14)

     
  4. 4.

    Partner-bonding/family (Questions 15–19).

     

Each question aims at investigating three specific aspects. First of all, the presence of a certain problem, which is evaluated by a a dichotomous value, that is “yes” or “no”. For every highlighted problem, patient has to describe i) the perceived discomfort related to the problem (“Bothered by” -Bb- and ii) the possible loss of personal autonomy due to that problem (“Need for Help” -NfH-). Both of these aspects are scored on a 5-point Likert scale and permit to obtain two sub-total scores by summing every single question scores.

Statistics

Clinical data are reported as mean ± SD, while Bela-P-k results are expressed both as mean ± SD and median (lower quartile, upper quartile). Numbers (frequency) are reported for categorical variables. The internal consistency reliability of the Italian version of the Bela-P-k questionnaire was assessed by means of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Both the global Bb and the global NfH sub-scale scores of all items (physical symptoms, emotional functioning, social functioning and partner-bonding/family) were tested.

Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed by Multitrait Scaling Analysis [26]. Item convergence was supported if the correlation, corrected for overlap with the trait, that it is hypothesized to represent, was ≥0.4. Item discrimination was supported if the correlation between the item and the trait, that it is hypothesized to represent, was the highest. The discriminant validity was also assessed by the method of known group comparison, testing for differences between mean values for patients grouped according to H & Y stages. This analysis was carried out by a one-way analysis of variance applied to the global Bb and global NfH scores and to all items.

Finally, the relationship between Bela-P-k and the PDQ39 was assessed by Spearman rank correlation coefficient.

The chosen level of statistical significance was 0.05. When appropriate, a false discovery rate was controlled at 5% employing the Benjamini-Hochberg method. All analyses were carried out by using the SAS/STAT statistical package, release 9.2.

Results

Table 1 reports the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients. The 57% of patients were in Hoehn and Yahr stage, 3, 37% in stage 2 and 6% in stage 4.
Table 1

Demographical and clinical data of patients

Variable

N

 

Gender (M)

202

105 (52%)

Age (yrs)

202

65.8 ± 9.0

Hoehn and Yahr

185

2.7 ± 0.6

Education (yrs)

202

11.3 ± 4.2

MMSEa [22]

201

28.3 ± 1.6

FABb [23]

201

14.5 ± 2.6

Total UPDRS

135

39.7 ± 13.1

UPDRS III

135

19.3 ± 6.2

UPDRS II

135

14.2 ± 5.7

UPDRS IV

135

4.2 ± 3.7

The MMSE and FAB scores have been corrected for normative data from Italian population. See reference a[22] for the validation of Italian version of MMSE and reference b[23] for the validation of Italian version of FAB

Descriptive statistics and internal consistency results are reported in Table 2 for all Bb and NfH scores. The Spearman r for the relationship between Bb and NfH scores is also given.
Table 2

Descriptive statistics, internal consistency for Bb (Bothered by) and NfH (Need for Help) score and relationship between the both scores

Variable

N

Bb Mean ± SD

Bb Median (Q1, Q3)

Bb int cons

NfH Mean ± SD

NfH Median (Q1, Q3)

NfH Int cons

Spearman r

Total

198

22.1 ± 16.5

19.0 (10.0,31.0)

0.91

19.7 ± 16.0

15.0 (7.0,28.0)

0.91

0.84

Physical Symptoms

201

6.6 ± 4.8

6.00 (3.00,9.25)

0.72

6.0 ± 4.9

5.00 (2.00,9.00)

0.75

0.78

Emotional Symptoms

201

6.0 ± 4.4

5.00 (2.00,9.00)

0.74

5.1 ± 4.3

4.00 (2.00,8.00)

0.76

0.80

Social Support

201

5.0 ± 5.2

4.00 (1.00,8.00)

0.79

4.6 ± 5.0

3.00 (0.50,7.00)

0.80

0.88

Partner Bonding/Family

198

4.5 ± 4.8

3.00 (1.00,7.00)

0.71

4.1 ± 4.7

2.00 (0.00,6.00)

0.73

0.88

The internal consistency was acceptable (>0.70) for all items of Bb and NfH category scores. A tendency towards values in NfH higher than in Bb was observed with regards to all items. The internal consistency for total Bb and NfH was 0.91 for both categories. The correlation between Bb and NfH categories was significant and strong very-strong, ranging from 0.78 to 0.88 (all p < 0.0001).

Table 3 shows the percentage of patients who judged each question as relevant. The most endorsed question was Q1: 80% of patients who thought the problem was relevant to them, with percentages very similar in males and females and with a greater frequency as HY increases, but without reaching statistical significance (Table 4). On the contrary, the least endorsed question was Q18 (28%), with significantly higher occurrences in males (36 vs 19%, adjusted p = 0.027). Significant differences between gender were observed also for Q9, Q13, Q16 and Q19 (adjusted p = 0.004, p = 0.045, p = 0.004, p < 0.0001, respectively) and between HY stages for Q5 and Q14 (adjusted p = 0.006 and p = 0.036, respectively).
Table 3

Percentage of “relevant judgment” to each question for patients

Variable

presence (%)

M presence (%)

F presence (%)

HY 2 presence (%)

HY 3 presence (%)

HY 4 presence (%)

PS1q

162 (80%)

86 (82%)

76 (78%)

51 (75%)

86 (81%)

10 (91%)

PS2q

131 (65%)

64 (61%)

67 (69%)

40 (59%)

72 (68%)

7 (64%)

PS3q

107 (53%)

55 (52%)

52 (54%)

30 (44%)

58 (55%)

10 (91%)

PS4q

112 (55%)

60 (57%)

52 (54%)

39 (57%)

56 (53%)

8 (73%)

PS5q

107 (53%)

53 (50%)

54 (56%)

22 (32%)

65 (61%)

8 (73%)

ES6q

128 (63%)

69 (66%)

59 (61%)

43 (63%)

69 (65%)

6 (55%)

ES7q

106 (52%)

60 (57%)

46 (47%)

38 (56%)

54 (51%)

5 (45%)

ES8q

147 (73%)

73 (70%)

74 (76%)

53 (78%)

76 (72%)

9 (82%)

ES9q

117 (58%)

52 (50%)

65 (67%)

42 (62%)

59 (56%)

7 (64%)

SF10q

113 (56%)

66 (63%)

47 (48%)

38 (56%)

57 (54%)

7 (64%)

SF11q

90 (45%)

52 (50%)

38 (39%)

30 (44%)

45 (42%)

6 (55%)

SF12q

70 (35%)

39 (37%)

31 (32%)

22 (32%)

37 (35%)

6 (55%)

SF13q

98 (49%)

63 (60%)

35 (36%)

30 (44%)

48 (45%)

8 (73%)

SF14q

79 (39%)

44 (42%)

35 (36%)

15 (22%)

50 (47%)

4 (36%)

PB-F15q

103 (51%)

61 (58%)

42 (44%)

31 (46%)

56 (53%)

8 (73%)

PB-F16q

64 (32%)

45 (43%)

19 (20%)

12 (18%)

39 (37%)

5 (45%)

PB-F17q

74 (37%)

32 (30%)

42 (44%)

24 (35%)

40 (38%)

4 (36%)

PB-F18q

56 (28%)

38 (36%)

18 (19%)

23 (34%)

27 (26%)

4 (36%)

PB-F19q

85 (43%)

68 (65%)

17 (18%)

28 (41%)

44 (42%)

6 (55%)

PS Physical Symptoms, ES Emotional symptoms, SF Social Functioning, PB-F Partner-Bonding\Family, q question

Table 4

Discriminant validity to Bb (Bothered by) and NfH (Need for Help) scores for patients grouped according to H%Y stages

Variable

HY 2

HY 3

HY 4

p val ANOVA

Total_Bb

21.0 ± 17.0

22.3 ± 16.1

29.1 ± 18.9

0.33

Physical Symptoms_Bb

5.8 ± 4.7

6.7 ± 4.7

9.4 ± 4.8

0.056

Emotional Symptoms_Bb

6.1 ± 4.3

5.9 ± 4.5

6.7 ± 4.9

0.84

Social Functioning_Bb

4.6 ± 5.3

5.2 ± 5.2

6.5 ± 5.5

0.55

Partner Bonding\Family_Bb

4.3 ± 4.8

4.6 ± 4.8

6.5 ± 5.6

0.38

Total_NfH

18.3 ± 17.4

19.7 ± 15.0

28.1 ± 18.1

0.18

Physical Symptoms_NfH

5.2 ± 5.0

6.0 ± 4.7

9.5 ± 4.5

0.022

Emotional Symptoms_NfH

5.1 ± 4.2

5.0 ± 4.2

6.9 ± 5.4

0.38

Social Functioning_NfH

4.1 ± 5.3

4.6 ± 4.7

5.8 ± 5.8

0.56

Partner Bonding\Family_NfH

3.9 ± 4.9

4.1 ± 4.6

5.9 ± 5.4

0.42

Item convergence and discrimination were supported for all items of both Bb and NfH category scores (corrected correlation with the trait hypothesized to represent ranging from 0.46 to 0.78 for Bb category scores and from 0.46 to 0.82 for NfH category scores).

The Italian version of Bela-P-k scores showed discrimination between patients with different disease severity according to the H & Y stage, only for the Achievement capability/physical symptoms with a borderline significance (p = 0.056) for Bb category and a clear significance (p = 0.022) for NfH category.

Table 5 reports the value of Spearman r for the relationship between Bb and NfH items and PDQ 39 values (total score and 3 sub-scores: mobility; well being and social support). All associations were significant (p ≤ 0.003).
Table 5

Relationship between Bela-p-K and PDQ39

 

PDQ_39

PDQ Mobility

PDQ Emotional Well-being

PDQ Social Support

Total_Bb

0.63

0.49

0.59

0.51

Physical Symptoms_Bb

0.62

0.55

0.47

0.39

Emotional Symptoms_Bb

0.56

0.40

0.66

0.44

Social Functioning_Bb

0.52

0.38

0.50

0.45

Partner Bonding\Family_Bb

0.43

0.31

0.38

0.48

Total_NfH

0.54

0.46

0.48

0.33

Physical Symptoms_NfH

0.58

0.56

0.40

0.27

Emotional Symptoms_NfH

0.49

0.38

0.56

0.30

Social Functioning_NfH

0.46

0.36

0.44

0.33

Partner Bonding\Family_NfH

0.35

0.26

0.31

0.36

Bb Bothered by, NfH Need for Help

Discussion

A multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment helps the patients to reduce both the functional impact and the discomfort due to the disease symptoms in everyday living activities and allows patients to acquire strategies to face with their motor difficulties [2, 12, 25, 27].

QoL is a crucial endpoint in the evaluation of the effectiveness of any therapeutic approach, since it explores the personal well-being perceived by patients.

Even if the PDQ39 is a specific and widely used tool for the assessment of QoL in parkinsonian patients, this instrument does not allow to distinguish between the impact of loss of personal autonomy in activities of daily life and the psychological and psychosocial impact of specific disease symptoms.

This is an important distinction in the rehabilitation field, since it permits to evaluate both the functional impact of the symptoms on everyday living and the perceived discomfort.

In this context, we have translated and validated the Bela-P-k. This questionnaire, which requires a short period of administration, permits to obtain two different scores: “Bothered by” (Bb) and “Need for Help” (NfH).

In accordance with previous studies [20], our data indicate that the internal consistency of Bela-P-k is excellent for both total scores of Bb and NfH and is also acceptable for the both scores in each singular question. The correlation between Bb and NfH scores was strong, but it never corresponded to 1.0. For this reason we confirm the advantage in assessing both issues separately.

There was a positive correlation between the QoL assessment obtained by Bela-P-k and PDQ39: this confirms that Bela-P-k is a good tool for clinicians.

In parkinsonian patients, the interindividual differences are often quite striking. In order to evaluate which symptoms are most common, we analysed the frequencies of relevance for each item. The most frequent issue reported by patients is the loss of efficiency in daily living: 80% of parkinsonian people complain about this, with a greater incidence in the advanced stage of the disease, as highlighted in precedent studies [28, 29]. People in the more advanced stages reported more frequently problems in requiring caregiver’s assistance in daily living activities and the need of delegating their duties to others.

We found no gender differences in QoL. However, between the males and females some differences were detected: while a greater fear for the future was found in women, males show a greater loss of identity, a greater influence of the family in their daily lives and sexual difficulties.

We suggest that these differences are due to the different tendency between female and male: the first tends to develop affective symptoms while the males tend to develop behavioural symptoms [30].

Conclusions

In conclusion, we found that the BELA-P-k is a suitable, valid and easily administrable test. This questionnaire provides the clinicians with an instrument that make possible to distinguish between the specific life’s aspects (Achievement skills, emotional status, social functioning and integration and quality of relationship with partner and relatives) and the components that worsen the Qol (the loss of personal autonomy in daily life and the perceived discomfort of each symptom). Given these features, BELA-P-k could represent a good outcome in a rehabilitative care context, allowing the clinicians to tailor specific rehabilitation treatments.

Abbreviations

Bb: 

Bothered by

BELA-p-K: 

Belastungsfragebogen Parkinson kurzversion

CT: 

Computed tomography

DRT: 

Dopamine replacement therapy

FAB: 

Frontal Assessment Battery

MMSE: 

Mini Mental State Examination

MRI: 

Magnetic resonance imaging

NfH: 

Need for help

PD: 

Parkinson’s Disease

PDQ-39: 

Parkinson Disease Questionnaire −39

QoL: 

Quality of life

UPDRS: 

Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study has no sponsors or funding support.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions in this article is available in an Excel spreadsheet at the “Moriggia-Pelascini” Hospital, Department of Parkinson’s disease, Movement Disorders and Brain Injury Rehabilitation.

Authors’ contributions

PO wrote the text, conceived and designed the experiments, provided substantial contributions to discussion of the content and edited the manuscript before submission. RM wrote the text, conceived and designed the experiments analysed the data and did the statistical analysis. MZ researched data for the article. VC researched data for the article. EU researched data for the article. FG researched data for the article. DF wrote the text, conceived and designed the experiments, provided substantial contributions to discussion of the content and edited the manuscript before submission. GF wrote the text, conceived and designed the experiments, provided substantial contributions to discussion of the content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

A written informed consent that was obtained by the patients before their participation in the study.

This can be made available upon request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study design and protocol were approved by the local Ethics Committee (Comitato Etico Interaziendale delle Province di Lecco, Como e Sondrio – Italy – 177\2016) and were in accordance with the World Medical Association’s code of Ethics (Declaration of Helsinki, 1967).

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Parkinson’s disease, Movement Disorders and Brain Injury Rehabilitation, “Moriggia-Pelascini” Hospital
(2)
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri Spa Società Benefit, IRCCS

References

  1. Tysnes OB, Storstein A. Epidemiology of Parkinson's disease. J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2017. doi:10.1007/s00702-017-1686-y.
  2. Frazzitta G, Maestri R, Bertotti G, Riboldazzi G, Boveri N, Perini M, et al. Intensive rehabilitation treatment in early Parkinson’s disease: a randomized pilot study with a 2-year follow-up. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29:123–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Gomez-Esteban JC, Zarranz JJ, Lezcano E, Tijero B, Luna A, Velasco F, et al. Influence of motor symptoms upon the quality of life of patients with Parkinson’s disease. Eur Neurol. 2007;57:161–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Global Parkinson's Disease Survey Steering Committee. Factors impacting on quality of life in Parkinson’s disease: results from an international survey. Mov Disord. 2002;17:60–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Soh SE, McGinley JL, Watts JJ, Iansek R, et al. Determinants of health-related quality of life in people with Parkinson’s disease: a path analysis. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:1543–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Schrag A, Jahanshahi M, Quinn N. What contributes to quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000;69:308–12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Schrag A, Jahanshahi M, Quinn N. How does Parkinson’s disease affect quality of life? A comparison with quality of life in the general population. Mov Disord. 2000;15:1112–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Smith Y, Wichmann T, Factor SA, DeLong MR. Parkinson's disease therapeutics: new developments and challenges since the introduction of Levodopa. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2012;37:213–46. Published online 28 Sept 2011. doi:10.1038/npp.2011.212 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Tomlinson CL, Patel S, Meek C, Clarke CE, Stowe R, Shah L, et al. Physiotherapy versus placebo or no intervention in Parkinson's disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD002817. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002817. pub2. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(8):CD002817. PubMed PMID: 22786482Google Scholar
  10. Bloem BR, de Vries NM, Ebersbach G. Nonpharmacological treatments for patients with Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. 2015;30:1504–20. doi:10.1002/mds.26363.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodwin VA, Richards SH, Taylor RS, Taylor AH, Campbell JL. The effectiveness of exercise interventions for people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mov Disord. 2008;23:631–40. doi:10.1002/mds.21922.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Frazzitta G, Bertotti G, Riboldazzi G, Turla M, Uccellini D, Boveri N, et al. Effectiveness of intensive inpatient rehabilitation treatment on disease progression in parkinsonian patients: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26:144–50. doi:10.1177/1545968311416990.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ekker MS, Janssen S, Nonnekes J, Bloem BR, de Vries NM. Neurorehabilitation for Parkinson's disease: future perspectives for behavioural adaptation. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2016;22(Suppl 1):S73–7. doi:10.1016/j.parkreldis.2015.08.031.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Wood-Dauphinee S. Assessing quality of life in clinical research: from where have we come and where are we going? J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:355–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. McKenna SP, Doward LC. The needs-based approach to quality of life assessment. Value Health. 2004;7:S1–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Soh S-E, McGinley JL, Morris ME. Measuring quality of life in Parkinson’s disease: selection of an appropriate health-related quality of life instrument. Physiotherapy. 2011;97:83–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellgring H, Seiler S, Perleth B, Frings W, Gasser T, Oertel W. Psychosocial aspects of Parkinson’s disease. Neurology. 1993;43(Suppl):41–4.Google Scholar
  18. Peto V, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Greenhall R. The development and validation of a short measure of functioning and well being for individuals with Parkinson's disease. Qual Life Res. 1995;4:241–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ringendahl H, Werheid K, Leplow B, Ellgring H, Annecke R, Emmans D. Vorschlage fur eine standardisierte psychologische Diagnostik bei Parkinsonpatienten. Nervenarzt. 2000;71:946–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Spliethoff-Kamminga NG, Zwinderman AH, Springer MP, Roos RA. Psychosocial problems in Parkinson's disease: evaluation of a disease-specific questionnaire. Mov Disord. 2003;18:503–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (UK). Dementia: a NICE-SCIE guideline on supporting people with dementia and their carers in health and social care. Leicester: British Psychological Society; 2007.Google Scholar
  22. Measso G, Cavarzeran F, Zappalà G, Lebowitz BD, Crock TH, Pirozzolo FJ, et al. The mini-mental state examination: normative study of an italian random sample. Neuropsychol. 1993;9:77–85. doi:10.1080/87565649109540545.Google Scholar
  23. Appollonio I, Leone M, Isella V, Piamarta F, Consoli T, Villa ML, et al. The frontal assessment battery (FAB): normative values in an Italian population sample. Neurol Sci. 2005;26:108–16. doi:10.1007/s10072-005-0443-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Guyatt GH. The philosophy of health related QoL translation. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:461–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Guilleman F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health related QoL measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:1417–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Hays RD, Hayashi T. Beyond internal consistency reliability: rationale and user’s guide for Multitrait scaling analysis program on the microcomputer. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1990;22:167–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Rafferty MR, Schmidt PN, Luo ST, Li K, Marras C, Davis TL, Guttman M, Cubillos F, Simuni T; all NPF-QII Investigators. Regular Exercise, Quality of Life, and Mobility in Parkinson's Disease: A Longitudinal Analysis of National Parkinson Foundation Quality Improvement Initiative Data. J Parkinsons Dis. 2017;7(1):193–202. doi:10.3233/JPD-160912.
  28. De Boer AGEM, Wijker W, Speelman JD, de Haes JCJM. Quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease: development of a questionnaire. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996;61:70–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhu K, van Hilten JJ, Marinus J. Onset and evolution of anxiety in Parkinson's disease. Eur J Neurol. 2016;29. doi:10.1111/ene.13217.
  30. Heller J, Dogan I, Schulz JB, Reetz K. Evidence for gender differences in cognition, emotion and quality of life in Parkinson’s disease? Aging Dis. 2014;5:63–75. Published online 22 Oct 2013. doi:10.14366/AD.2014.050063 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement