Comparison of an Online-Only Parkinson's Disease Research Cohort to Cohorts Assessed In Person.
Parkinson’s disease
observational studies as topic
patient reported outcome measures
survey methods
Journal
Journal of Parkinson's disease
ISSN: 1877-718X
Titre abrégé: J Parkinsons Dis
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101567362
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
pubmed:
21
1
2020
medline:
27
7
2021
entrez:
21
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Online tools for data collection could be of value in patient-oriented research. The Fox Insight (FI) study collects data online from individuals with self-reported Parkinson's disease (PD). Comparing the FI cohort to other cohorts assessed through more traditional (in-person) observational research studies would inform the representativeness and utility of FI data. To compare self-reported demographic characteristics, symptoms, medical history, and PD medication use of the FI PD cohort to other recent observational research study cohorts assessed with in-person visits. The FI PD cohort (n = 12,654) was compared to 3 other cohorts, selected based on data accessibility and breadth of assessments: Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI; PD n = 422), Parkinson's Disease Biomarker Program (PDBP; n = 700), and PD participants in the LRRK2 consortium without LRRK2 mutations (n = 508). Demographics, motor and non-motor assessments, and medications were compared across cohorts. Where available, identical items on surveys and assessments were compared; otherwise, expert opinion was used to determine comparable definitions for a given variable. The proportion of females was significantly higher in FI (45.56%) compared to PPMI (34.36%) and PDBP (35.71%). The FI cohort had greater educational attainment as compared to all other cohorts. Overall, prevalence of difficulties with motor experiences of daily living and non-motor symptoms in the FI cohort was similar to other cohorts, with only a few significant differences that were generally small in magnitude. Missing data were rare for the FI cohort, except on a few variables. Patterns of responses to patient-reported assessments obtained online on the PD cohort of the FI study were similar to PD cohorts assessed in-person.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Online tools for data collection could be of value in patient-oriented research. The Fox Insight (FI) study collects data online from individuals with self-reported Parkinson's disease (PD). Comparing the FI cohort to other cohorts assessed through more traditional (in-person) observational research studies would inform the representativeness and utility of FI data.
OBJECTIVE
To compare self-reported demographic characteristics, symptoms, medical history, and PD medication use of the FI PD cohort to other recent observational research study cohorts assessed with in-person visits.
METHODS
The FI PD cohort (n = 12,654) was compared to 3 other cohorts, selected based on data accessibility and breadth of assessments: Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI; PD n = 422), Parkinson's Disease Biomarker Program (PDBP; n = 700), and PD participants in the LRRK2 consortium without LRRK2 mutations (n = 508). Demographics, motor and non-motor assessments, and medications were compared across cohorts. Where available, identical items on surveys and assessments were compared; otherwise, expert opinion was used to determine comparable definitions for a given variable.
RESULTS
The proportion of females was significantly higher in FI (45.56%) compared to PPMI (34.36%) and PDBP (35.71%). The FI cohort had greater educational attainment as compared to all other cohorts. Overall, prevalence of difficulties with motor experiences of daily living and non-motor symptoms in the FI cohort was similar to other cohorts, with only a few significant differences that were generally small in magnitude. Missing data were rare for the FI cohort, except on a few variables.
DISCUSSION
Patterns of responses to patient-reported assessments obtained online on the PD cohort of the FI study were similar to PD cohorts assessed in-person.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31958097
pii: JPD191808
doi: 10.3233/JPD-191808
pmc: PMC7242834
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
677-691Références
Neurology. 2014 Jul 29;83(5):406-12
pubmed: 24975862
Mov Disord. 2016 Jun;31(6):915-23
pubmed: 26442452
Mov Disord. 2014 May;29(6):743-9
pubmed: 24515275
Mov Disord. 2016 Aug;31(8):1192-202
pubmed: 27091104
Mov Disord. 2020 Feb;35(2):231-234
pubmed: 31710391
Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2012 Jan;18(1):54-8
pubmed: 21917501
Prim Care Diabetes. 2015 Oct;9(5):397-400
pubmed: 25037637
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006 Feb;14(2):169-75
pubmed: 16473982
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015 Dec;24(12):2860-5
pubmed: 26411693
Sci Data. 2020 Feb 24;7(1):67
pubmed: 32094335
Sleep Med. 2011 May;12(5):445-53
pubmed: 21349763
PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e59707
pubmed: 23527256
JMIR Med Inform. 2018 Aug 21;6(3):e42
pubmed: 30131314
Mov Disord. 2008 Nov 15;23(15):2129-70
pubmed: 19025984
Brain. 2002 Apr;125(Pt 4):861-70
pubmed: 11912118
Neurology. 2011 Aug 30;77(9):851-7
pubmed: 21832214
Mov Disord. 2018 Nov;33(11):1825-1826
pubmed: 30311268
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Jun 05;8:37
pubmed: 18644098
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012 Jun 18;10:70
pubmed: 22709981
Lancet Neurol. 2006 Mar;5(3):235-45
pubmed: 16488379
Mov Disord. 2007 Dec;22(16):2386-93
pubmed: 17894337
Mov Disord. 2004 Nov;19(11):1306-12
pubmed: 15390007
Sleep. 1991 Dec;14(6):540-5
pubmed: 1798888
BMC Neurol. 2006 Aug 22;6:29
pubmed: 16925826
Prog Neurobiol. 2011 Dec;95(4):629-35
pubmed: 21930184
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007 Nov;63(11):1069-74
pubmed: 17712552
Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2018 Mar 01;5(2):171-176
pubmed: 30009211
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2018 Oct 31;5(12):1460-1477
pubmed: 30564614
J Med Internet Res. 2013 Jan 24;15(1):e20
pubmed: 23343503
Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2009 May;15(4):258-62
pubmed: 18693062
Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Aug 16;10:981-989
pubmed: 30147377
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002 Nov;73(5):529-34
pubmed: 12397145