Physiotherapy in Parkinson’s disease in the Czech Republic – a demographic study

Czech version

Authors: M. Srp; O. Gál; R. Konvalinková; M. Hoskovcová; V. Čapek; J. Roth; E. Růžička
Authors‘ workplace: Neurologická klinika a Centrum klinických neurověd 1. LF UK a VFN v Praze
Published in: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2018; 81(2): 194-198
Category: Original Paper
doi: https://doi.org/10.14735/amcsnn2018194

Overview

Aim:
The aim of this study was to investigate the quality and availability of physiotherapy for patients with Parkinson’s disease.

Materials and methods:
Questionnaire inspired by previously published studies was sent to 368 Parkinson’s disease patients who met the inclusion criteria (at least one visit in the Movement Disorders Center of the General University Hospital in Prague within the last 2 years; Parkinson΄s disease, Hoehn & Yahr stage < 5; residence in Prague). The questionnaire consisted of items concerning limitations in six core areas for physiotherapy (gait, transfers, manual dexterity, balance/ falls, posture, and physical capacity), limitation in daily living activities, utilization of physiotherapy, patients’ satisfaction and other characteristics of the therapy.

Results:
Questionnaires were returned by 248 patients. Prescription rate in patients with a relevant problem (limitation in a core area and motivation to improve in it) in one of the six core areas ranged from 15% (manual dexterity) to 22% (gait). Most patients (79%) were satisfied with physiotherapy and the overall effect lasted > 3 months in 42/ 64 patients who answered this question. In total, 10% of the patients changed their physiotherapist due to dissatisfaction.

Conclusion:
Because of the very low physiotherapy prescription rate, reorganization of Parkinson’s disease-related health care is needed in the Czech Republic. An efficient model of health care tested abroad could be ParkinsonNet.

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.

Sources

1. Dorsey ER, Constantinescu R, Thompson JP et al. Projected number of people with Parkinson disease in the most populous nations, 2005 through 2030. Neurology 2007; 68(5): 384– 386. doi: 10.1212/ 01.wnl.0000271777.50910.73.

2. Olesen J, Gustavsson A, Svensson M et al. The economic cost of brain disorders in Europe. Eur J Neurol 2012; 19(1): 155– 162. doi: 10.1111/ j.1468-1331.2011.03590.x.

3. Winter Y, von Campenhausen S, Brozova H et al. Costs of Parkinson‘s disease in Eastern Europe: A Czech cohort study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2010; 16(1): 51– 56. doi: 10.1016/ j.parkreldis.2009.07.005.

4. Keus SHJ, Munneke M, Graziano M et al. European Physiotherapy Guideline for Parkinson’s disease. 2014; KNGF/ ParkinsonNet, the Netherlands. Dostupné z URL: http:/ / fizioterapeitiem.lv/ attachments/ article/ 307/ 4_eu_guideline_parkinson_201412-development.pdf.

5. Mehrholz J, Kugler J, Storch A et al. Treadmill training for patients with Parkinson‘s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 22(8): CD007830. doi: 10.1002/ 146 51858.

6. Roeder L, Costello JT, Smith SS et al. Effects of resistance training on measures of muscular strength in people with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10(7): e0132135. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0132135.

7. Tomlinson CL, Herd CP, Clarke CE et al. Physiotherapy for Parkinson‘s disease: a comparison of techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 17(6): CD002815. doi: 10.1002/ 14651858.

8. Tomlinson CL, Patel S, Meek C et al. Physiotherapy intervention in Parkinson’s disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2012; 345: e5004. doi: 10.1136/ bmj.e5004.

9. Tomlinson CL, Patel S, Meek C et al. Physiotherapy versus placebo or no intervention in Parkinson‘s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 10(9): CD002817. doi: 10.1002/ 14651858.CD002817.

10. Uhrbrand A, Stenager E, Pedersen MS et al. Parkinson‘s disease and intensive exercise therapy – a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Neurol Sci 2015; 353(1– 2): 9– 19. doi: 10.1016/ j.jns.2015.04.004.

11. Keus SH, Oude Nijhuis LB, Nijkrake MJ et al. Improving community healthcare for patients with Parkinson‘s Disease: the dutch model. Parkinsons Dis 2012; 2012: 543426. doi: 10.1155/ 2012/ 543426.

12. Keus SH, Bloem BR, Verbaan D et al. Physiotherapy in Parkinson’s disease: utilisation and patient satisfaction. J Neurol 2004; 251(6): 680– 687. doi: 10.1007/ s00415-004-0402-7.

13. Nijkrake MJ, Keus SH, Oostendorp RA et al. Allied health care in Parkinson‘s disease: Referral, consultation, and professional expertise. Mov Disord 2009; 24(2): 282– 286. doi: 10.1002/ mds.22377.

14. Hobson JP, Edwards NI, Meara RJ. The Parkinson‘s Disease Activities of Daily Living Scale: a new simple and brief subjective measure of disability in Parkinson‘s disease. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15(3): 241– 246. doi: 10.1191/ 026921501666767060.

15. Hughes AJ, Daniel SE, Kilford L et al. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson‘s disease: a clinico-pathological study of 100 cases. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1992; 55(3), 181– 184.

16. Gal O, Srp M, Konvalinkova R et al. Physiotherapy in Parkinson’s disease: building ParkinsonNet in Czechia. Parkinson Dis 2017; 2017: 8921932. doi: 10.1155/ 2017/ 8921932.

17. de Boer AG, Sprangers MA, Speelman HC et al. Predictors of health care use in patients with Parkinson‘s disease: A longitudinal study. Mov Disord 1999; 14(5): 772– 779.

18. Walker RW, Chaplin A, Hancock RL et al. Hip fractures in people with idiopathic Parkinson‘s disease: Incidence and outcomes. Mov Disord 2013; 28(3): 334– 340. doi: 10.1002/ mds.25297.

19. Jack K, McLean SM, Moffett JK et al. Barriers to treatment adherence in physiotherapy outpatient clinics: A systematic review. Man Ther 2010; 15(3): 220– 228. doi: 10.1016/ j.math.2009.12.004.

20. Pickering RM, Fitton C, Ballinger C et al. Self reported adherence to a home-based exercise programme among people with Parkinson‘s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2013; 19(1): 66– 71. doi: 10.1016/ j.parkreldis.2012.07.006.

21. Marinus J, Visser M, Stiggelbout AM et al. Activity-based diary for Parkinson‘s disease. Clin Neuropharmacol 2002; 25(1): 43– 50.

22. Nieuwboer A, Rochester L, MÜNCKS L et al. Motor learning in Parkinson‘s disease: limitations and potential for rehabilitation. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2009; 15 (Suppl 3): S53– S58. doi: 10.1016/ S1353-8020(09)70781-3.

23. Rochester L, Baker K, Hetherington V et al. Evidence for motor learning in Parkinson‘s disease: Acquisition, automaticity and retention of cued gait performance after training with external rhythmical cues. BrainRes 2010; 1319: 103– 111. doi: 10.1016/ j.brainres.2010.01.001.

24. Hirsch MA, Farley BG. Exercise and neuroplasticity in persons living with Parkinson‘s disease. Eur J Phys Re-habil Med 2009; 45(2): 215– 229.

25. Abbruzzese G, Trompetto C, Marinelli L. The rationale for motor learning in Parkinson‘s disease. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2009; 45(2): 209– 214.

26. Wong-Yu IS, Mak MK. Multi-dimensional balance training programme improves balance and gait performance in people with Parkinson‘s disease: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial with 12-month follow-up. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2015; 21(6): 615– 621. doi: 10.1016/ j.parkreldis.2015.03.022.