Nancy R. LaPelle

Bio: Nancy R. LaPelle is an academic researcher from University of Massachusetts Medical School. The author has contributed to research in topics: Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale & Focus group. The author has an hindex of 15, co-authored 29 publications receiving 5068 citations.

Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results.

Abstract: We present a clinimetric assessment of the Movement Disorder Society (MDS)-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS). The MDS-UDPRS Task Force revised and expanded the UPDRS using recommendations from a published critique. The MDS-UPDRS has four parts, namely, I: Non-motor Experiences of Daily Living; II: Motor Experiences of Daily Living; III: Motor Examination; IV: Motor Complications. Twenty questions are completed by the patient/caregiver. Item-specific instructions and an appendix of complementary additional scales are provided. Movement disorder specialists and study coordinators administered the UPDRS (55 items) and MDS-UPDRS (65 items) to 877 English speaking (78% non-Latino Caucasian) patients with Parkinson's disease from 39 sites. We compared the two scales using correlative techniques and factor analysis. The MDS-UPDRS showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.79-0.93 across parts) and correlated with the original UPDRS (rho = 0.96). MDS-UPDRS across-part correlations ranged from 0.22 to 0.66. Reliable factor structures for each part were obtained (comparative fit index > 0.90 for each part), which support the use of sum scores for each part in preference to a total score of all parts. The combined clinimetric results of this study support the validity of the MDS-UPDRS for rating PD.

Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): Process, format, and clinimetric testing plan.

Abstract: This article presents the revision process, major innovations, and clinimetric testing program for the Movement Disorder Society (MDS)-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), known as the MDS-UPDRS. The UPDRS is the most widely used scale for the clinical study of Parkinson's disease (PD). The MDS previously organized a critique of the UPDRS, which cited many strengths, but recommended revision of the scale to accommodate new advances and to resolve problematic areas. An MDS-UPDRS committee prepared the revision using the recommendations of the published critique of the scale. Subcommittees developed new material that was reviewed by the entire committee. A 1-day face-to-face committee meeting was organized to resolve areas of debate and to arrive at a working draft ready for clinimetric testing. The MDS-UPDRS retains the UPDRS structure of four parts with a total summed score, but the parts have been modified to provide a section that integrates nonmotor elements of PD: I, Nonmotor Experiences of Daily Living; II, Motor Experiences of Daily Living; III, Motor Examination; and IV, Motor Complications. All items have five response options with uniform anchors of 0 = normal, 1 = slight, 2 = mild, 3 = moderate, and 4 = severe. Several questions in Part I and all of Part II are written as a patient/caregiver questionnaire, so that the total rater time should remain approximately 30 minutes. Detailed instructions for testing and data acquisition accompany the MDS-UPDRS in order to increase uniform usage. Multiple language editions are planned. A three-part clinimetric program will provide testing of reliability, validity, and responsiveness to interventions. Although the MDS-UPDRS will not be published until it has successfully passed clinimetric testing, explanation of the process, key changes, and clinimetric programs allow clinicians and researchers to understand and participate in the revision process.

Simplifying Qualitative Data Analysis Using General Purpose Software Tools

Abstract: This article shows how clever but simple use of word-processing functions can provide many features of special-purpose software designed for analyzing text. For many qualitative research projects, and for students who are learning computerassisted analysis of text, the Microsoft Word functions outlined here may be all that are required. Examples are given showing how Microsoft Word can be used for coding and retrieving, semiautomated coding and inspection, creating hierarchies of code categories via indexing, global editing of theme codes, coding of “face-sheet” data, exploring relationships between face-sheet codes and conceptual codes, quantifying the frequency of code instances, and annotating text. The techniques outlined can be used for analyzing and managing many kinds of data, including key informant interviews, focus groups, document and literature reviews, and open-ended survey questions.

Identifying strategies to improve access to credible and relevant information for public health professionals: a qualitative study

Abstract: Movement towards evidence-based practices in many fields suggests that public health (PH) challenges may be better addressed if credible information about health risks and effective PH practices is readily available. However, research has shown that many PH information needs are unmet. In addition to reviewing relevant literature, this study performed a comprehensive review of existing information resources and collected data from two representative PH groups, focusing on identifying current practices, expressed information needs, and ideal systems for information access. Nineteen individual interviews were conducted among employees of two domains in a state health department – communicable disease control and community health promotion. Subsequent focus groups gathered additional data on preferences for methods of information access and delivery as well as information format and content. Qualitative methods were used to identify themes in the interview and focus group transcripts. Informants expressed similar needs for improved information access including single portal access with a good search engine; automatic notification regarding newly available information; access to best practice information in many areas of interest that extend beyond biomedical subject matter; improved access to grey literature as well as to more systematic reviews, summaries, and full-text articles; better methods for indexing, filtering, and searching for information; and effective ways to archive information accessed. Informants expressed a preference for improving systems with which they were already familiar such as PubMed and listservs rather than introducing new systems of information organization and delivery. A hypothetical ideal model for information organization and delivery was developed based on informants' stated information needs and preferred means of delivery. Features of the model were endorsed by the subjects who reviewed it. Many critical information needs of PH practitioners are not being met efficiently or at all. We propose a dual strategy of: 1) promoting incremental improvements in existing information delivery systems based on the expressed preferences of the PH users of the systems and 2) the concurrent development and rigorous evaluation of new models of information organization and delivery that draw on successful resources already operating to deliver information to clinical medical practitioners.

Sustainability of public health programs: the example of tobacco treatment services in Massachusetts.

Abstract: Sustaining important public or grant-funded services after initial funding is terminated is a major public health challenge. We investigated whether tobacco treatment services previously funded within a statewide tobacco control initiative could be sustained after state funding was terminated abruptly. We found that 2 key strategies-redefining the scope of services being offered and creative use of resources-were factors that determined whether some community agencies were able to sustain services at a much higher level than others after funding was discontinued. Understanding these strategies and developing them at a time when program funding is not being threatened is likely to increase program sustainability.

The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers

Abstract: An Introduction to Codes and Coding Chapter Summary Purposes of the Manual What Is a Code? Codifying and Categorizing What Gets Coded? The Mechanics of Coding The Numbers of Codes Manual and CAQDAS Coding Solo and Team Coding Necessary Personal Attributes for Coding On Method Writing Analytic Memos Chapter Summary The Purposes of Analytic Memo-Writing What Is an Analytic Memo? Examples of Analytic Memos Coding and Categorizing Analytic Memos Grounded Theory and Its Coding Canon Analytic Memos on Visual Data First-Cycle Coding Methods Chapter Summary The Coding Cycles Selecting the Appropriate Coding Method(s) Overview of First-Cycle Coding Methods The Coding Methods Profiles Grammatical Methods Elemental Methods Affective Methods Literary and Language Methods Exploratory Methods Forms for Additional First-Cycle Coding Methods Theming the Data Procedural Methods After First-Cycle Coding Chapter Summary Post-Coding Transitions Eclectic Coding Code Mapping and Landscaping Operational Model Diagramming Additional Transition Methods Transitioning to Second-Cycle Coding Methods Second-Cycle Coding Methods Chapter Summary The Goals of Second-Cycle Methods Overview of Second-Cycle Coding Methods Second-Cycle Coding Methods Forms for Additional Second-Cycle Coding Methods After Second-Cycle Coding Chapter Summary Post-Coding and Pre-Writing Transitions Focusing Strategies From Coding to Theorizing Formatting Matters Writing about Coding Ordering and Re-Ordering Assistance from Others Closure Appendix A: A Glossary of Coding Methods Appendix B: A Glossary of Analytic Recommendations Appendix C: Field Note, Interview Transcript and Document Samples for Coding Appendix D: Exercises and Activities for Coding and Qualitative Data Analytic Skill Development References Index

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Abstract: Background Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty. Objectives To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. Search methods For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008). Selection criteria We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were: A) 'choice made' attributes; B) 'decision-making process' attributes. Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model. Main results This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each. Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies). A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes: Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13). B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes: Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18); b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18). Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice. C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive. Authors' conclusions There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values. New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results.

Abstract: We present a clinimetric assessment of the Movement Disorder Society (MDS)-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS). The MDS-UDPRS Task Force revised and expanded the UPDRS using recommendations from a published critique. The MDS-UPDRS has four parts, namely, I: Non-motor Experiences of Daily Living; II: Motor Experiences of Daily Living; III: Motor Examination; IV: Motor Complications. Twenty questions are completed by the patient/caregiver. Item-specific instructions and an appendix of complementary additional scales are provided. Movement disorder specialists and study coordinators administered the UPDRS (55 items) and MDS-UPDRS (65 items) to 877 English speaking (78% non-Latino Caucasian) patients with Parkinson's disease from 39 sites. We compared the two scales using correlative techniques and factor analysis. The MDS-UPDRS showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.79-0.93 across parts) and correlated with the original UPDRS (rho = 0.96). MDS-UPDRS across-part correlations ranged from 0.22 to 0.66. Reliable factor structures for each part were obtained (comparative fit index > 0.90 for each part), which support the use of sum scores for each part in preference to a total score of all parts. The combined clinimetric results of this study support the validity of the MDS-UPDRS for rating PD.

Parkinson’s disease: clinical features and diagnosis

Abstract: Objective: Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a progressive neurological disorder characterised by a large number of motor and non-motor features that can impact on function to a variable degree. This review describes the clinical characteristics of PD with emphasis on those features that differentiate the disease from other parkinsonian disorders. Methods: A MedLine search was performed to identify studies that assess the clinical characteristics of PD. Search terms included “Parkinson’s disease”, “diagnosis” and “signs and symptoms”. Results: Because there is no definitive test for the diagnosis of PD, the disease must be diagnosed based on clinical criteria. Rest tremor, bradykinesia, rigidity and loss of postural reflexes are generally considered the cardinal signs of PD. The presence and specific presentation of these features are used to differentiate PD from related parkinsonian disorders. Other clinical features include secondary motor symptoms (eg, hypomimia, dysarthria, dysphagia, sialorrhoea, micrographia, shuffling gait, festination, freezing, dystonia, glabellar reflexes), non-motor symptoms (eg, autonomic dysfunction, cognitive/neurobehavioral abnormalities, sleep disorders and sensory abnormalities such as anosmia, paresthesias and pain). Absence of rest tremor, early occurrence of gait difficulty, postural instability, dementia, hallucinations, and the presence of dysautonomia, ophthalmoparesis, ataxia and other atypical features, coupled with poor or no response to levodopa, suggest diagnoses other than PD. Conclusions: A thorough understanding of the broad spectrum of clinical manifestations of PD is essential to the proper diagnosis of the disease. Genetic mutations or variants, neuroimaging abnormalities and other tests are potential biomarkers that may improve diagnosis and allow the identification of persons at risk.

MDS clinical diagnostic criteria for Parkinson's disease

Abstract: This document presents the Movement Disorder Society Clinical Diagnostic Criteria for Parkinson's disease (PD). The Movement Disorder Society PD Criteria are intended for use in clinical research but also may be used to guide clinical diagnosis. The benchmark for these criteria is expert clinical diagnosis; the criteria aim to systematize the diagnostic process, to make it reproducible across centers and applicable by clinicians with less expertise in PD diagnosis. Although motor abnormalities remain central, increasing recognition has been given to nonmotor manifestations; these are incorporated into both the current criteria and particularly into separate criteria for prodromal PD. Similar to previous criteria, the Movement Disorder Society PD Criteria retain motor parkinsonism as the core feature of the disease, defined as bradykinesia plus rest tremor or rigidity. Explicit instructions for defining these cardinal features are included. After documentation of parkinsonism, determination of PD as the cause of parkinsonism relies on three categories of diagnostic features: absolute exclusion criteria (which rule out PD), red flags (which must be counterbalanced by additional supportive criteria to allow diagnosis of PD), and supportive criteria (positive features that increase confidence of the PD diagnosis). Two levels of certainty are delineated: clinically established PD (maximizing specificity at the expense of reduced sensitivity) and probable PD (which balances sensitivity and specificity). The Movement Disorder Society criteria retain elements proven valuable in previous criteria and omit aspects that are no longer justified, thereby encapsulating diagnosis according to current knowledge. As understanding of PD expands, the Movement Disorder Society criteria will need continuous revision to accommodate these advances.