“You Have to Know Why You’re Doing This”: A Mixed Methods Study of the Benefits and Burdens of Self-Tracking in Parkinson’s Disease

by | Aug 30, 2019 | Research Publications

Author(s):

  • Sara Riggare
  • Therese Scott Duncan
  • Helena Hvitfeldt
  • Maria Hägglund

Abstract:

Background

This study explores opinions and experiences of people with Parkinson’s disease (PwP) in Sweden of using self-tracking. Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative condition entailing varied and changing symptoms and side effects that can be a challenge to manage optimally. Patients’ self-tracking has demonstrated potential in other diseases, but we know little about PD self-tracking. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the opinions and experiences of PwP in Sweden of using self-tracking for PD.

Method

A mixed methods approach was used, combining qualitative data from seven interviews with quantitative data from a survey to formulate a model for self-tracking in PD. In total 280 PwP responded to the survey, 64% (n = 180) of which had experience from self-tracking.

Result

We propose a model for self-tracking in PD which share distinctive characteristics with the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle for healthcare improvement. PwP think that tracking takes a lot of work and the right individual balance between burdens and benefits needs to be found. Some strategies have here been identified; to focus on positive aspects rather than negative, to find better solutions for their selfcare, and to increase the benefits through improved tools and increased use of self-tracking results in the dialogue with healthcare.

Conclusion

The main identified benefits are that self-tracking gives PwP a deeper understanding of their own specific manifestations of PD and contributes to a more effective decision making regarding their own selfcare. The process of self-tracking also enables PwP to be more active in communicating with healthcare. Tracking takes a lot of work and there is a need to find the right balance between burdens and benefits.

Documentation: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-019-0896-7

References:
  1. Okun MS. Management of Parkinson Disease in 2017 Personalized approaches for patient-specific needs. JAMA. 2017;318(9).Article  Google Scholar 
  2. Lees AJ, Hardy J, Revesz T. Parkinson’s disease. Lancet. 2009;373(9680):2055–66.CAS Article  Google Scholar 
  3. Skogar Ö, Nilsson M, Törnhage C, Lökk J. National surveys: a way to manage treatment strategies in Parkinson’s disease? Pharmaceutical prescribing patterns and patient experiences of symptom control and their impact on disease. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2013;6:239–47.Article  Google Scholar 
  4. Connolly BS, Lang AE. Pharma-cological treatment of Parkinson disease. A Review J Neurol. 2014;311(4):442–9. Google Scholar 
  5. Weaver FM, Stroupe KT, Cao L, et al. Parkinson’s disease medication use and costs following deep brain stimulation. Mov Disord. 2012;27(11):1398–403.Article  Google Scholar 
  6. Fargel M, Grobe B, Oesterle E, Hastedt C, Rupp M. Treatment of Parkinson’s disease. A survey of patients and neuro-logists. Clin Drug Investig. 2007;27(3):207–18.Article  Google Scholar 
  7. Riggare S, Höglund PJ, Hvitfeldt Forsberg H, Eftimovska E, Svenningsson P, Hägglund M. Patients are doing it for themselves: a survey on disease-specific knowledge acquisition among people with Parkinson’s disease in Sweden. Health Informatics J. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458217704248.Article  Google Scholar 
  8. Hvitfeldt H, Carli C, Nelson EC, Mortenson DM, Ruppert BA, Lindblad S. Feed forward Systems for Patient Participation and Provider Support: adoption results from the original US context to Sweden and beyond. Qual Manag Health Care. 2009;18(4):247–56.Article  Google Scholar 
  9. Hebert C, Neuhauser D. Improving hypertension care with patient-generated run charts: physician, patient, and management perspectives. Qual Manag Health Care. 2004;13(3):174–7.Article  Google Scholar 
  10. Odin P, Chaudhuri KR, Volkmann J, et al. Viewpoint and practical recom-mendations from a movement disorder specialist panel on objective measur-ement in the clinical management of Parkinson ’ s disease. NPJ Park Dis. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41531-018-0051-7.
  11. Maetzler W, Klucken J, Horne M. A clinical view on the development of technology-based tools in managing Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2016;31(9):1263–71.Article  Google Scholar 
  12. Serrano JA, Larsen F, Isaacs T, et al. Participatory Design in Parkinson’s research with focus on the symptomatic domains to be measured. J Park Dis. 2015;5:187–96. Google Scholar 
  13. van Uem J, Isaacs T, Lewin A, et al. A viewpoint on wearable technology-enabled measurement of wellbeing and health-related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. J Park Dis. 2016;6:279–87. Google Scholar 
  14. Ozanne A, Johansson D, Hällgren Graneheim U, Malmgren K, Bergquist F, Alt MM. Wearables in epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease—a focus group study. Acta Neurol Scand. 2018;137(2):188–94.CAS Article  Google Scholar 
  15. Ferreira JJ, Godinho C, Santos AT, et al. Quantitative home-based assessment of Parkinson’s symptoms: The SENSE-PARK feasibility and usability study. BMC Neurol. 2015;15(89).
  16. Riggare S, Hägglund M. Precision Medicine in Parkinson’s Disease – Exploring Patient-Initiated Self-Tracking. J Parkinsons Dis. 2018;Pre-press(Pre-press):1–6.
  17. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J Mix Methods Res. 2007;1(2):112–33.Article  Google Scholar 
  18. Denscombe M. The good research guide – for small-scale social research projects. 4th ed. Bell & Bain Ltd: Glasgow; 2010. Google Scholar 
  19. Morse JM. The significance of saturation. Qual Health Res. 1995;5(2):147–9.Article  Google Scholar 
  20. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105–12.CAS Article  Google Scholar 
  21. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.Article  Google Scholar 
  22. van Nes F, Abma T, Jonsson H, Deeg D. Language differences in qualitative research: is meaning lost in translation? Eur J Ageing. 2010;7(4):313–6.Article  Google Scholar 
  23. Findahl O, Davidsson P. Swedes and the internet 2015 (in Swedish). 2015. http://www.internetstatistik.se. Accessed 6 May 2016. Google Scholar 
  24. Sue VM, Ritter LA. Conducting online surveys. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2012.Book  Google Scholar 
  25. Preacher KJ. Calculation for the chi-square test: An interactive calculation tool for chi-square tests of goodness of fit and independence [Computer software]. 2001. http://quantpsy.org for the Chi-Square Test. Accessed 5 Sept 2018.
  26. Langley GJ, Moen RD, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP. The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational performance. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1996. Google Scholar 
  27. Neuhauser D. Personal quality improvement and individualized health process control: an update. Qual Manag Health Care. 2008;17(2):186–8.Article  Google Scholar 
  28. Ancker JS, Witteman HO, Hafeez B, Provencher T, Van De Graaf M, Wei E. “You get reminded you’re a sick person”: personal data tracking and patients with multiple chronic conditions. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(8):1–18.Article  Google Scholar 
  29. Sharon T. Self-Tracking for Health and the Quantified Self : Re-Articulating Autonomy , Solidarity , and Authenticity in an Age of Personalized Healthcare. Philos Technol 2017;30:93–121.Article  Google Scholar 
  30. Fox S, Duggan M. Tracking for health. 2013. http://www.pewinternet.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/media/Files/Reports/2013/PIP_TrackingforHealth-with-appendix.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2013. Google Scholar 
  31. Statistiska Centralbyrån, Utbildningsnivå efter kön (in Swedish). 2006. http://www.scb.se/mi1303. Accessed 1 Feb 2016. Google Scholar