RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Given the current lack of evidence on quality and safety improvements and on the cost-benefits associated with the introduction of eHealth applications, there should be a focus on implementing more mature technologies; it is also important that eHealth applications should be evaluated against a comprehensive and rigorous set of measures, ideally at all stages of their application life cycle.
BACKGROUND: The Movement Disorder Society Evidence-Based Medicine Committee recommendations for treatments of PD were first published in 2002 and updated in 2011, and we continued the review to December 31, 2016.
METHODS: Level I studies of interventions for motor symptoms were reviewed. Criteria for inclusion and quality scoring were as previously reported. Five clinical indications were considered, and conclusions regarding the implications for clinical practice are reported.
RESULTS: A total of 143 new studies qualified. There are no clinically useful interventions to prevent/delay disease progression. For monotherapy of early PD, nonergot dopamine agonists, oral levodopa preparations, selegiline, and rasagiline are clinically useful. For adjunct therapy in early/stable PD, nonergot dopamine agonists, rasagiline, and zonisamide are clinically useful. For adjunct therapy in optimized PD for general or specific motor symptoms including gait, rivastigmine is possibly useful and physiotherapy is clinically useful; exercise-based movement strategy training and formalized patterned exercises are possibly useful. There are no new studies and no changes in the conclusions for the prevention/delay of motor complications. For treating motor fluctuations, most nonergot dopamine agonists, pergolide, levodopa ER, levodopa intestinal infusion, entacapone, opicapone, rasagiline, zonisamide, safinamide, and bilateral STN and GPi DBS are clinically useful. For dyskinesia, amantadine, clozapine, and bilateral STN DBS and GPi DBS are clinically useful.
CONCLUSIONS: The options for treating PD symptoms continues to expand. These recommendations allow the treating physician to determine which intervention to recommend to an individual patient. © 2018 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
METHODS: The Noor Evidence-Based Medicine Questionnaire was tested among physicians in a government hospital between July and August 2018. Exploratory factor analysis and internal consistency reliability-based Cronbach's alpha statistic were conducted.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was distributed among 94 physicians, and 90 responded (response rate of 95.7%). The initial number of items in the KAP domains of the Noor Evidence-Based Medicine Questionnaire were 15, 17, and 13, respectively; however, two items in the practice domain with communalities <0.25 and factor loadings <0.4 were removed. The factor structure accounted for 52.33%, 66.29%, and 55.39% of data variance in the KAP domains, respectively. Cronbach's alpha values were 0.81, 0.81, and 0.84 for KAP domains, respectively, indicating high reliability.
CONCLUSIONS: This questionnaire can be used to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour of healthcare professionals toward EBM. Future testing of this questionnaire among other medical personnel groups will help expand the scope of this tool.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted individual in-depth interviews with people with type 2 diabetes who were making decisions about insulin treatment. Participants were selected purposively to achieve maximum variation. A semi-structured topic guide was used to guide the interviews which were audio-recorded and analysed using a thematic approach. We interviewed 21 participants between January 2011 and March 2012. The age range of participants was 28-67 years old. Our sample comprised 9 women and 12 men. Three main themes, 'treatment-specific values', 'life goals and philosophies', and 'personal and social background', emerged from the analysis. The patients reported a variety of insulin-specific values, which were negative and/or positive beliefs about insulin. They framed insulin according to their priorities and philosophies in life. Patients' decisions were influenced by sociocultural (e.g. religious background) and personal backgrounds (e.g. family situations).
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the need for expanding the current concept of patient values in medical decision making. Clinicians should address more than just values related to treatment options. Patient values should include patients' priorities, life philosophy and their background. Current decision support tools, such as patient decision aids, should consider these new dimensions when clarifying patient values.