Table 1.
Participant number | Interview category | Gender | Age | HY stage | Dwelling place | Partner | Cognitive function (MMSE) | Motor function (UPDRS III) | Nonmotor symptoms (NMSS) | Depressive symptoms (GDS-30) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Patient | f | 88 | 4 | Home | Yes | 20 | 39 | 49 | 21 |
2 | Husband | — | — | — | — | Pat #1 | — | — | — | — |
3 | Daughter | f | 90 | 5 | Residential care facility | No | 20 | 44 | 147 | 7 |
4 | Patient | m | 83 | 4 | Residential care facility | Yes | 24 | 34 | 87 | 17 |
5 | Patient | f | 79 | 4 | Home | No | 24 | 35 | 46 | 12 |
6 | Wife | m | 73 | 4 | Home∗ | Yes | 15 | 39 | 109 | 12 |
7 | Patient | m | 64 | 4 | Home | Yes | 19 | 12 | 106 | 3 |
8 | Patient | m | 65 | 4 | Home | Yes | 28 | 21 | 104 | 8 |
9 | Wife | — | — | — | — | Pat #8 | — | — | — | — |
10 | Patient | m | 83 | 4 | Home | Yes | 21 | 48 | 35 | 8 |
11 | Wife | — | — | — | — | Pat #10 | — | — | — | — |
12 | Patient | m | 89 | 4 | Home | Yes | 26 | 26 | 51 | 4 |
13 | Wife | Pat #12 | ||||||||
14 | Patient | m | 86 | 4 | Home | Yes | 21 | 26 | 92 | 10 |
15 | Wife | Pat #14 | ||||||||
16 | Patient | m | 84 | 5 | Home | Yes | 18 | 61 | 82 | 9 |
17 | Wife | Pat #16 | ||||||||
18 | Patient | m | 85 | 4 | Residential care facility | Yes | 28 | 18 | 93 | 21 |
19 | Patient | f | 76 | 4 | Home | Yes | 22 | 41 | 51 | 10 |
20 | Husband | Home | Pat #19 |
Participants in chronological order. Shaded area: informal caregivers; patient demographic and clinical data are shown in cases where the informal caregivers were not part of a dyad. HY, Hoehn and Yahr staging scale (score range I–V, higher = worse); MMSE, mini-mental state examination (score range 0–30, higher = better); UPDRS, Unified PD Rating Scale, part III = motor examination (score range 0–108, higher = worse); NMSS, Nonmotor Symptoms Scale (0–360, higher = worse); GDS-30, Geriatric Depression Scale (score range 0–30, higher = worse). ∗Patient in the process of moving to a residential care facility.