Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Apr 8;16(4):e0249390. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249390

What is the lived experience of anxiety for people with Parkinson’s? A phenomenological study

Christopher J Lovegrove 1,2,*,#, Katrina Bannigan 3,#
Editor: Rosemary Frey4
PMCID: PMC8031398  PMID: 33831029

Abstract

Purpose

Anxiety is a common non-motor symptom of Parkinson’s and there is no specific pharmacological intervention for people with Parkinson’s who experience anxiety. Yet there is little specific research documenting how individuals with this condition experience anxiety. It is important to explore the experiences of people with Parkinson’s to identify potential issues in developing future non-pharmacological interventions. This study explored the lived experience of anxiety for people with Parkinson’s.

Materials and methods

Six participants were recruited into a descriptive phenomenological study, through the charity Parkinson’s UK, using a maximum variation sampling strategy. Face to face interviews were conducted. Data analysis employed thematic analysis.

Results

Three key themes encapsulated the data: Finding ways to cope to “Try not to let it rule your life”, Amplifies symptoms “It’s emotionally draining it it’s also physically draining” and “Anxiety is a funny thing” experienced in myriad ways. A model of the experience of PWP experience of anxiety is proposed.

Conclusions

Anxiety is a complex experience constructed of interlinked parts affecting people with Parkinson’s in myriad ways. Researchers and healthcare professionals should take these findings into account when designing future studies and interventions.

Introduction

Parkinson’s disease, commonly referred to as Parkinson’s, is the second most common neurodegenerative condition worldwide [1]. For example, in the UK, it affects approximately 145,000 people [2]. The majority of people with Parkinson’s (PWPs) (98.6%) experience non-motor symptoms and, of these 43–56% experience stress and anxiety [3, 4]. Walsh and Bennett [5], in a comprehensive literature review, found a higher prevalence of anxiety in PWPs compared to the general population. These studies suggest that anxiety is more common in PWPs than previously believed [6]. This is of concern because PWPs who experience anxiety are more at risk of falling and experience a lower quality of life, loss of independence, loss of social roles, and increased health burden [7, 8]. It has been identified that excessive anxiety in PWPs results in a higher frequency of motor fluctuations [9, 10].

Anxiety and Parkinson’s

Hallion and Ruscio [11] describe anxiety as a persistent internal feeling of fear and worry that is intrusive in daily life. Walsh and Bennett [5] highlight that PWPs experience more anxiety than people with multiple sclerosis and, in particular, are afraid of being negatively evaluated in public. This suggests that these individuals experience anxiety differently to other populations, and that an earlier age of anxiety onset in Parkinson’s could be an indicator of higher levels of anxiety.

Psychological stressors that are associated with long-term conditions and experienced by PWPs can increase anxiety [12]. However, PWPs may be more susceptible to anxiety than people with other long-term conditions due to Parkinson’s-associated dopamine deficiency [13]. Dopamine is a modulator in the amygdala, a brain structure involved in fear and anxiety [14]. When dopamine is deficient, this produces neuronal hyper-excitability and exaggerated responses to perceived threats [14, 15]. Although PWPs can be treated with dopamine-replacement medication they often experience a marked increase in symptoms as the medication wears off throughout the day [16]; primary (or type-1) worry can in turn rapidly progress to type-2 worry (meta-worry, or ‘worry about worry’) [17]. This can further increase anxiety symptoms which contribute to the maintenance of the hyper-excited neuronal anxiety circuit [18].

The experience of anxiety in Parkinson’s has also been thought to be related to age [19]. Whilst Barone et al. [3] found that approximately 40% of PWPs experienced anxiety that affected their everyday life they were unable to establish a link between the experience of anxiety and the age of the person with Parkinson’s. Burn et al. [20] suggested that there is a strong relationship between the age of Parkinson’s onset and anxiety, specifically that younger age of onset resulted in higher anxiety levels. Evidence suggests that younger PWPs are the primary population affected by anxiety [3, 5, 21]. Ehgoetz Martens et al. [21] found that an increase in anxiety resulted in an increase in freezing of gait (a brief, episodic loss, or reduction, of forward progression of the feet despite the intention to walk) episodes in both ‘freezers’ and ‘non-freezers’ (p = <0.001–0.013). These results suggest that anxiety is an important mechanism underpinning freezing of gait. The implication is, if PWPs are more anxious, they are likely to find mobilising more difficult and reduced mobility has a negative correlation with quality of life [22, 23]. This is a significant implication for clinicians and researchers to consider when developing interventions [24, 25], especially as there is no specific pharmacological intervention for PWPs who experience anxiety [26]. The link to motor performance was also noted in that the participants were highly anxious about falling, which has been supported by other literature [25, 27]. Other potential sources of anxiety for all older people, not just those with Parkinson’s, include health, families, work, finances, lightning, and heights; all of which can change over the life course [28].

Research suggests that anxiety is not experienced as a singular entity but as a set of complex multi-dimensional interactions with the world [29, 30]. Whilst these studies provide insights, generally there is a lack of anxiety-specific research in Parkinson’s [3, 10, 31, 32]. The relationship between anxiety and motor performance requires further research [9, 10, 21]. Anxiety has been identified as a research priority by the charity Parkinson’s UK [31]. Given its prevalence, the lack of a specific pharmacological intervention, and the dearth of specific research, it is vital to gain an understanding of the experience of anxiety for PWPs to inform the development of future complex interventions [33]. A patient and public involvement consultation was undertaken to verify the need for this research with PWPs and to seek their opinions on how the study should be conducted [34]. All participants stated that they felt anxiety in Parkinson’s needed more research, thus strengthening the rationale for this study. As no research exploring the lived experience of anxiety for PWPs was identified, and it has been identified as an important area for research, the aim of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of the lived experience of anxiety for PWPs.

Materials and method

The approach that guided this study was descriptive phenomenology—rooted in the philosophy of Edmund Husserl (1859–1938)—which recognises that peoples’ descriptions of their real-world experiences are important, because they shape actions, and so merit being the subject of scientific investigation [35]. Essentially, phenomenology’s purpose is to illuminate the essence of a person’s experience in relation to a specific phenomenon; in this instance first-hand accounts of the experience of living with anxiety for people with Parkinson’s [36, 37]. To this end, phenomenology typically uses small sample sizes because, if an understanding of individual lived experience is the objective, data saturation is irrelevant [38]. Equally, whilst quantifiable and generalizable conclusions are not the objective, there is potential for an exploration into individual experiences to offer insights into, and understanding of, the human condition [39]. A feature of phenomenological research is ‘bracketing’; the putting aside of one’s own beliefs and knowledge about the phenomenon to avoid personal biases and prejudices influencing data collection and analysis. Throughout this research process, the researcher used strategies outlined by Chan, Fung, and Chien to achieve this, such as mental preparation, i.e deciding the scope of the litertaure review, planning the data collection, and planning the data analysis [40]. Collectively using these steps throughout the study mitigated any potentially deleterious effects of preconceptions that may have occurred.

Participants in the patient and public consultation (described above) also provided practical recommendations for how the study should be conducted. These recommendations were used to directly improve the design of this research study [34]. Ethical approval for this study was granted through the University of Plymouth’s Faculty of Health and Human Sciences (reference number (16/17)-244). All participants provided written consent. People with Parkinson’s can experience cognitive deficits [41]. This has the potential to hinder their ability to give informed consent regarding individual decisions [42]. Thus, the researcher—an experienced occupational therapist familiar with working with people with cognitive impairments—assessed whether the individual participants had the capacity to make a decision to participate in the study. This was completed during the introductory phone call, based on the UK Mental Capacity Act, with a standardised joint-service mental capacity assessment document if required [42].

Participants

Having secured ethical approval for the study, six participants were recruited using Parkinson’s UK ‘Research Support Network’ [43]. A maximum variation sampling strategy was successfully used to recruit people with experience of Parkinson’s across different stages of the condition. All of the participants felt they experienced anxiety that was either caused by, or related to, their Parkinson’s. Three men and three women were recruited across the three main stages of the condition according to the Thomas and MacMahon staging (diagnosis/ early, maintenance, and complex) [44]. A man and a woman were recruited for each stage. The mean age of the sample was 68 years (range = 59–86). All participants were white. Five participants were married to, or in de facto relationships (those living together on a genuine domestic basis and are not legally married or related by family), all with partners of a different sex and gender, and one participant was widowed. Five participants were retired, and one participant maintained a part-time self-employed job. All participants were white-British people, as classified by the UK census [45] from the South West of England, UK. All of the participants were living in their own homes.

Data collection

This research was conducted in accordance with American Psychological Associations’ Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Research [46]. Interviews were held in the participants’ homes in an area where they felt comfortable. The aim of this was to increase convenience and privacy as it is suggested, that if participants are comfortable, they are more likely to reveal the nature of their lived experience [47, 48]. During the interviews, the researcher referred to the interview schedule (S1 File). This was developed for the study by adapting the wording of the interviewing framework proposed by Bevan for phenomenolgical studies [49]. Questions were adapted to focus the participant thoughts towards the study phenomenon; for example “Please can you tell me about your diagnosis with Parkinson’s” and “What is your experience of anxiety?”. A semi-structured approach was utilised to allow participants to elucidate and explore matters considered important to them [47]. Using an interview schedule allowed the researcher to investigate the research question in each interview while giving participants the opportunity to illustrate their own ‘lifeworld’ [4952]. A digital Dictaphone with encryption capability was used for all audio recording and field notes were taken during and immediately after each interview. The purpose of this was to aid in developing understanding and meaning of the studied phenomenon by documenting observed behaviours, thoughts, and feelings [53].

Data analysis

Thematic analysis was used to develop a deep insight through systematic reflection that could help the emergence of meaningful order from the collected complex, rich data [54, 55]. This method provides a flexible but robust process of analysis using coding to identify ideas from raw data and then using these codes to identify patterns across a dataset [56]. Thus, a ‴theme" can be described as the subjective meaning and cultural-contextual message of data. Codes with common reference points by which ideas can be unified throughout the study phenomenon can be transformed into a theme [57]. Following each interview, the researcher prepared the data for analysis by preparing a verbatim transcription of the encrypted audio recordings into a word-processed document, formatted to support the coding process. Each transcript was completed within 24 hours. Braun and Clarke [56, 58] emphasise the importance of transcription as the beginning of the data analysis process. The researcher reread the transcripts and listened to the audio recordings simultaneously, on several occasions. This was part of the immersion phase, a process whereby the researchers immerse themselves in the collected data by examining the data in depth [59], to involve the researcher in the participant’s experiences and increase their familiarity with the data. Following this, the researcher entered an incubation phase where they purposely stepped away from the research for one month to support bracketing and the emergence of tacit knowledge [40, 60]. The data analysis was managed using software NVivo v10 [61]; a qualitative data analysis software package that helps researchers to organize and analyze qualitative research data. NVivo is atheoretical and the researcher uses it in line with their philosophical position. The codes chosen used the participant’s own words as closely as possible with the aim of supporting participant’s voices to come through in the analysis [58, 62]. Following this, the codes were grouped into sub-categories and then themes.

Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness refers to the degree of confidence in data, interpretation, and the methodology used to confirm the quality of a study [63, 64]. A number of strategies were used to ensure the analysis accurately reflected the participants’ lived experiences. Firstly, during the generation of themes, the researcher underwent a peer review process with a senior researcher (KB) who reviewed and challenged the analysis to assure the rigor and credibility of the data analysis [53, 65, 66]. This constructive feedback and interrogation resulted in several themes being further collapsed or renamed. Next, all six participants were given an opportunity to view a summary of the findings to check for accuracy in a member checking process [63, 64]. The purpose of this was to avoid misrepresentation of the participant’s views and ensure the data truly reflected their experiences rather that the researcher’s beliefs and assumptions [67]. Four of the six participants responded; they agreed with the overarching themes and offered additional insights into each theme for the researcher to consider. In the creative synthesis phase themes were illustrated with vivid quotations from the interview transcripts to explore the experience of the phenomenon of anxiety in Parkinson’s [53].

Results and discussion

Three overarching themes encapsulated the lived experience of anxiety for PWPs

  • Finding ways to cope to “Try not to let it rule your life”

  • Amplifies symptoms “It’s emotionally draining it it’s also physically draining.”

  • “Anxiety is a funny thing” experienced in myriad ways.

The themes are presented in turn and are discussed in relation to the literature. Areas for research have been highlighted throughout. These findings are then integrated with the knowledge from the literature into a proposed model of the experience of PWPs experience of anxiety (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Proposed model of the experience of PWP experience of anxiety.

Fig 1

Finding ways to cope to “Try not to let it rule your life”

‘Coping’—a complex concept—has been defined as habitual and enduring patterns of behaviours displayed by a person when confronted by a situation needing a response [68]. All of the participants had had to find coping strategies to manage their anxiety, but they had different experiences of this. For example, participants described the benefits of sharing their experiences with other PWPs as positively influencing their wellbeing:

“Which is very beneficial, a because it’s six guys we started out with and we are close knit family if you want to call it that and that’s good camaraderie and that’s good for your own wellbeing and physical exercise has been proven in Parkinson’s to to, to help and suppress the anxiety things”

(Alan, lines 168–174)

“Parkinson’s is a big neurological disease. No one knows how it’s going to pan out and there’s a certain amount of nervousness about it. But if you’re with other people who are similarly affected you can discuss, talk to themselves, their carers, their wives, their husbands. There’s a few people younger than me not many. And we share experience. To be fair you become very friendly with them.”

(Daniel, lines 282–290)

Other participants shared negative feelings towards shared experiences of anxiety with other PWPs; some participants even valued experiencing their anxiety alone:

“Soothing words, pfft, its that’s not gonna help. So it doesn’t help the person in front of me if there’s someone there, and it doesn’t really help me. Some say it clears out the stables it releases feelings, well for me something like that doesn’t. It just makes it worse.”

(Edward, lines 501–507)

The participants’ alternative coping strategies to manage their anxiety included being reliant on one’s own abilities rather than those of others. Five participants highlighted the importance of self-reliance and self-confidence to them:

“In the end I’ve got to be answerable for myself. Other people cannot be responsible for me. And I think you’ve got to have trust in yourself. Faith in yourself. In the long run it comes to you.”

(Beth, lines 576–581)

“… I just thought you’ve got to get on with it as much as you can, as well as you can. And try not to let it rule your life.”

(Clare, lines 208–210)

Some participants emphasised how they felt that the support of other people remained important in their anxiety experience:

“I’m very lucky with my partner <name>. Whose granddad died, or had Parkinson’s when he died. Erm so she’s experienced it and will jokingly tell me don’t be so stupid and buck up you know. She kicks me up the bum now and then if I’m feeling anxious or worried about something I shouldn’t be worried about.”

(Daniel, lines 257–267)

As well as identifying active ways of coping with anxiety in Parkinson’s, participants acknowledged that ‘losing the ability to cope’ was an important component of their lived experience of anxiety. Losing the ability to cope, and reduced locus of control, is associated with anxiety [69, 70], and the participants reflected this:

“I feel a little bit like I have lost that capacity. And maybe perhaps, thinking about it, perhaps I am getting cross with myself that I can’t deal with it as well as I used to.”

(Clare, lines 625–629)

Amplifies symptoms “It’s emotionally draining it it’s also physically draining”

The second theme captures how anxiety exacerbated or amplified the participants pre-existing symptoms, including their engagement in public and social life, ability to think, their emotions, and self-identity, as well as their physical symptoms. This had an impact on their daily occupations and participation:

“And-and you’re trying inadvertently not to be conspicuous because it’s not normal is it. It’s not normal to be different at the meal table we’ll say. Or it’s not normal to be when you go to pick up a glass of orange squash or so or beer and you and, yeah.”

(Alan, lines 673–679)

“So I now make sure, the way the way I engage with the outside world is predominantly in social context now. If I give a talk to my Probus group or my PD group, it’s low profile it’s not a big issue. It’s something I’ve done before, it’s something I can rehearse.”

(Edward, lines 288–297)

These quotations suggest that anxiety affected the participants’ engagement in public and social life.

Ability to think

Participants openly expressed the experience of anxiety on cognition, and this was experienced in different ways in a variety of circumstances:

“Yes I have always thought I was quite a clear thinker but if I’m pushed, or if I’m stressed now, I just, I just forget basic ordinary things. And I just can’t, I just can’t think logically I need to wait until I settle. And go back to a problem.”

(Clare, lines 402–407)

Similarly, Edward shared his experience of how anxiety affects his cognition and mimicked the physical symptom of freezing of gait:

“And the thought process then gets, in the same way as you physically stuck I can get mentally stuck. I can only like it it’s not a vicious circle because that indicates motion. The brain stops!”

(Edward, lines 420–425)

Emotions

Participants described anxiety as having a negative effect on their emotions. The emotional anxiety experience was never described as positive; it amplified feelings of fear, nervousness, and derealisation:

“My experience of it is, it can leave you nervous, it can make you nervous. It can make you very concerned about issues that might not be so difficult to deal with but they become a problem more than they really are.”

(Alan, lines 526–530)

“Well I sort of, sweaty. And I feel, I feel I go starey. A bit like a rabbit in the headlights. Sometimes. And I just feel that I’m there but I’m not part of what’s going on. I feel like I’m an outsider looking in, an observer of a situation rather than being part of it…”

(Clare, lines 459–465)

Self-identity

During the interviews, the participants described experiences that suggest Parkinson’s changes one’s self-identity and relationship with other people. This represents an amplification of the social consequences of anxiety in Parkinson’s. Often this experience was negative:

“I was surprised when I had stopped working, that I missed the sense of purpose. I still do miss having something to get up for. Although I’ve got bits and pieces that I do, plenty to keep me busy but I still miss having that, goal because I’ worked while 25 years. I was never previously off sick I was the sort of person who was never ill and worked most of the year without any days off sick. So it was a bit of a shock.”

(Clare, lines 302–311)

“I just feel that I’m a different person and I’m afraid to go anywhere because I’m afraid I’ll feel ill or something you know…”

(Gillian, lines 162–165)

Physical symptoms

Participants described how anxiety amplified their physical symptoms:

“It manifested itself as these pains in my legs and they’re not shaking so much I don’t shake a lot I am at the moment this is because I’m talking to you. But that’s not, its stiffness really. And my foot is turned out completely.”

(Beth, lines 144–149)

“I think it makes me slower, speech wise it-it appears to change my gait when I get tired and anxious. My gait changes, my walking pattern changes. To small steps. That’s probably it if I get anxious, if I get tired that happens as well. So, so they seem to be linked somehow…”

(Daniel, lines 241–247)

“Anxiety is a funny thing” experienced in myriad ways

The final theme captures the essence of the participants’ experience of anxiety which they described in myriad ways. Most participants experienced anxiety as a negative, ubiquitous presence:

“It’s emotionally draining it it’s also physically draining depending by the end of the week what sort of week you’ve had, you can just feel whacked by Friday lunchtime.”

(Alan, lines 355 to 359)

“A sort of compression really I think. You feel everyone is watching you, you’re looking around. Lack of confidence I think, perhaps comes in with anxiety as well…”

(Daniel, lines 330–333)

“I’ve lost confidence to do things you know. I hate it, I hate the way I am. I absolutely hate it.”

(Gillian, lines 40–43)

The causes of anxiety in Parkinson’s were described in many different ways, relating to the participants’ experience of physical symptoms and their impact on control and unfamiliarity:

“There’s anxiety there to a certain extent, am I going to do this properly? And sometimes the anxiety is really there when you’re out-of-control and you’ve got no control of your body.”

(Beth, lines 495–499)

“I got anxious about finding the seat. It was really strange statement I’ve not really had before. It was a strange stadium I didn’t know where I was going. I was anxious of the loss, I was by myself and I was anxious about where my seat was.”

(Daniel, lines 198–204)

Some participants touched upon depression as part of their anxiety experience. Anxiety and depression are linked in the research literature and often coexist [19, 71, 72]. Participants described episodes of depression after diagnosis that passed, but did not identify themselves as currently feeling or being depressed:

“Aaand yeah I’ve had times where I’ve felt depressed. And I haven’t taken medication I mean I’ve always been one for, I’ve always been a one to make sure I don’t look down that avenue I don’t suffer with depression or haven’t had depression.”

(Alan, lines 158–163)

The participants’ experienced anxiety in Parkinson’s as a ubiquitous, detrimental presence in their everyday lives:

“And it’s it’s a cycle like that more or less everyday.”

(Alan, lines 359–360)

“And that’s an anxiety which is, it is always there but I would say up to now it’s background. Background noise. I can see depending on the way the condition goes I could be more and more anxious about me and those around me.”

(Edward, lines 323–328)

Discussion

The notion of sharing experiences between peers living through a common phenomenon, described by the participants, is an established support mechanism, i.e. peer support [73, 74]. Its usefulness may be explained by the psychology of upwards and downwards social comparison [75, 76]. Wills [77] explains downwards social comparison as a typically defensive propensity whereby the person looks at another individual that they consider worse-off to feel better about their situation.

“I’m fine one-to-one and I’d much rather talk to people individually. Um, I’m not very happy within the group, I mean it’s not a huge group there’s usually only five or six of us but it does get a bit monotonous… Which sounds very negative and horrible, but there’s a lot of repetition and people are very forgetful which is again something else that is probably typical.”

(Clare, lines 558–568)

Conversely, Collins [78] describes upwards social comparison as a person consciously or subconsciously comparing themselves to those that they perceive as better off or coping better, to create a more positive perception of their reality. Alan explained his experience of attending a Parkinson’s exercise group, and how this affected his ability to cope:

“Everybody can see what each other is doing and how succeed and fail in certain things, and you live off you feed off of each other and give each other confidence. And that’s a big help. To know that there are other people with the same problem, getting by.”

(Alan, lines 844–850)

It may be that the participants in this study employed a combination of social comparison to manage their anxiety. As social comparison has been linked to positive and negative outcomes, including those related to anxiety, this may be an area of future research interest when developing a targeted Parkinson’s anxiety intervention [75, 79].

Coping strategies for anxiety in PWPs are not addressed in the literature but the development of alternative coping strategies is not unique to the Parkinson’s anxiety experience. The different ways that participants had found to cope have been identified by other people, across cultures, living with a multitude of health conditions including anxiety [80, 81]. Finding ways to cope could be considered an expression of human response to crisis [8284].

Self-reliance and self-confidence have been identified as essential components in managing anxiety; they empower people to seek out advice as well as implementing coping strategies [85]. However, it has also been noted that people experiencing anxiety demonstrate impaired cognitive information processing [86]; a known non-motor symptom of Parkinson’s [87]. In conjunction with the other symptoms of Parkinson’s, this can result in eroded self-confidence leading to people trying to reduce uncertainty in their lives and becoming more reliant on others [88]. This was reflected in the participants’ experiences.

Participants reported that the support of other people was a necessary driver for overcoming anxiety. Relational support has been found to be important in stressful situations [29], having a protective role and assisting to reduce distress [89]. Conversely, this support may have potentially adverse consequences for PWPs managing anxiety, such as increased social avoidance due to reliance on others [89, 90]. Current anxiety–related research focused on resilience [91] could explain the importance of social support in managing anxiety. The variety of experiences voiced by participants means that further studies in this area could be beneficial.

Issues around coping and losing the ability to cope have previously been identified in PWPs [29, 30]. It could be argued that the younger participants were more likely to experience this as younger PWPs are more liable to experience severe anxiety [20]. However, this viewpoint is countered by Gillian. She is an older person, who feels she knows what she should be doing to feel better but is unable to cope with her anxiety.

“And I know all the answers and I know that I should do more. Because the less you do the less you want to do. I’ve lost confidence to do things you know. I hate it, I hate the way I am. I absolutely hate it.”

(Gillian, lines 38–43)

Gillian’s experience echoes those of other older adults [92, 93]. While a younger age of Parkinson’s onset is likely related to an early commencement of anxiety symptoms [20, 94]. PWPs of all ages experience a loss of coping and control. This is a consideration for the development of future interventions [95]. The range of experiences of PWPs also point toward the need for a person-centred approach when developing an intervention.

Research has described the cognitive consequences of anxiety, particularly in spatial and working memory [96]. In Parkinson’s, the relationship between anxiety and working memory has been noted particularly in PWPs with left hemibody onset [97]. It might be that participants are encountering an overload of their working memory contributing to their anxiety experience [98]. It is interesting that Edward described an experience that mirrored freezing of gait. It has been recognised that PWPs who experience freezing of gait episodes have dysfunction in brain areas that interact with mobility [99]. Edward describes the reverse of this experience, i.e. his brain freezes not his mobility, possibly identifying a novel avenue for future research.

Issues with emotional regulation involving dopaminergic pathways have been identified in PWPs [100], so this may be a contributing factor to the participants’ experiences. This suggests that these occurrences are not isolated to PWPs. It may be argued that the underlying pathology of Parkinson’s, coupled with the experience of living with an incurable neurodegenerative condition that affects participation in daily occupation, could amplify this experience [30, 101, 102].

Considering the strong link between anxiety and depression in PWPs in the quantitative literature [3, 32], it is interesting that participants’ stories did not reflect this. It could be that the participants felt it was not relevant to the study, or the interview schedule required adapting to take this into account [48, 103]. It should be considered that anxiety could exist as a phenomenon unique to depression yet existing in a complex dyadic relationship [12, 101].

The participants expressed a sense of loss of control that has been identified in other experiences of living with a long-term condition [104, 105]. The loss of control equates to a sense of powerlessness, where individuals perceive that they have no influence over their life [106, 107]. Control becomes invested in external forces and fate [107].Closely tied to powerlessness is ‘meaninglessness’; an invasive feeling of the absence of significance, direction, and/or purpose [108]. Through a phenomenological lens, it could be seen that the lifeworld experience of anxiety in Parkinson’s is one of increasing powerlessness and subsequent meaninglessness. With this in mind, future interventions to help PWPs live well with anxiety should focus on restoring meaningfulness.

Clare’s experience of “I just feel that I’m there but I’m not part of what’s going on” has been described in other studies exploring anxiety and derealisation in other populations [109, 110]. Derealisation is an altered perception or experience of oneself and their surroundings, resulting in the person feeling detached from the world that they participate in [111]. This could be interpreted as a protective experience; a disconnect from the anxiety stimulating constant worry [110]. While the findings of Sunvisson [29] touch upon some themes linked to Clare’s experience of derealisation, this has not been explicitly investigated in the wider Parkinson’s literature. This is relevant as it identifies another area of potential future research.

Self-identity is challenged on a daily basis through a variety of dynamic processes, such as consistency and clarity in life roles and personal standards [112]. If anxiety is experienced on a long-term basis, this can result in increased social isolation that challenges one’s self-identity [91, 113]. People with Parkinson’s have a higher risk of losing their ability to participate in meaningful life roles, which fosters vulnerability towards social isolation and can negatively influence their self-identity [30, 114]. This suggests that PWPs experiencing anxiety may be at increased risk of losing their self-identity; this was reflected in the participants’ stories.

Interwoven with changing self-identity were the participants’ experiences of changing relationships with others, and how this amplifies the loss of self-identity. This included significant others, wider family and other people:

“…as I say I’ve always been a sociable outgoing person but, um, I think twice now before I accept an invitation. Or going out to dinner with friends I feel more, more uncertain and insecure than I ever have done and I usually still go, but I’m looking for an excuse quite often.”

(Clare, lines 149–155)

“And those who, well my wife is increasingly in role of carer with a capital c rather than a small c.”

(Edward, lines 320–323)

The participants’ experiences suggest that these changing relationships are in part due to the change in physical functioning brought about by Parkinson’s, as well as anxiety. Perhaps, as the condition increasingly affected the participant’s ability to participate in the world, making them more static, it made it more effortful and challenging for them to adjust and respond to unexpected demands [29]. This may alter their relationships with others, which further challenges self-identity [112, 114]:

“You can’t help it and then it leaves you feeling as a man, are these things going to be haunting you forever more. Then you can have performance anxiety because of the Parkinson’s and not sleep right. Then you’ve got the business of how does your wife feel about that. You’ve got the problem of being able to walk with her and hold her hand or be able to lay your hand across her body or something without the hand shaking. And, it-it’s really unpleasant and that causes anxiety, definitely. Definitely. You just wish you could, you just wish you could go to sleep and wake up and you’re ok.”

(Alan, lines 614–628)

Problems related to intimacy and sexual dysfunctions are a frequently recorded complication for PWPs but remain poorly investigated [115]. It can lead to relationship dysfunction and subsequent breakdown [116]. Alan expresses how this challenges his identity as a man, as well as a husband. Gender identity issues are also under-explored, with some suggesting that this may be a manifestation of hypersexuality i.e. sexual dysfunction leading to excessive sexual demand [117]. Thinking reflexively, it was interesting that Alan raised intimate relationships and illustrated his feelings about this in depth, yet this was not a topic identified by the researcher or in the literature review. As the researcher did not question other participants around this, the findings are limited regarding this and further research is warranted.

Previous research has suggested that anxiety primarily affects motor performance as a result of medication ‘wearing-off’ [118]. The stories shared by participants suggest a more complex relationship between anxiety and motor symptomology that cannot be explained by ‘wearing-off’ phenomenon alone [9]. The link between anxiety and physical symptoms in Parkinson’s has previously been explored in the context of freezing of gait [21, 118]. There is less evidence regarding how anxiety affects other physical symptoms, such as pain and tremor in Parkinson’s [9, 94] yet these are a vivid component of the participants’ experiences. Freezing of gait (and the falls related with it) is a primary concern of healthcare professionals and researchers [31]. People with Parkinson’s highlight their other symptoms as often being equal to, if not more important to, falls [32]. Therefore, a shift in perspective may be required so that healthcare professionals and researchers are more aware of the priorities of PWPs.

The findings of the theme “Amplification” align with other studies exploring the experience of Parkinson’s. For example, Sunvisson [29] highlights how increased situational anxiety can result in a “closed down” (p.96) experience, possibly leading to reduced drive to socialise by PWPs [95]. However, Wressle et al. [30] suggest that the effects on social and public life may not solely be attributable to anxiety in Parkinson’s. Adverse effects on social and public life may occur irrespective of anxiety in Parkinson’s but may not have had such a high impact [119]. It could also be that the participants are experiencing slowed cognitive processing that is impacting on social interactions. Mild cognitive deficits can be detected in PWPs even before motor symptoms appear [120] this may be a contributing factor in this experience.

The participants identified anxiety as a negative experience that had a detrimental impact on their quality of life, echoing the findings of the patient and public involvement consultation [34]. Anxiety is overwhelmingly seen as a negative entity in Parkinson’s literature, associated with issues such as fear of falling, and uncertainty in family and employment roles [8, 27, 94]. The participants’ experiences reflect this, placing the negative experience as an aspect within the lived experience of anxiety in Parkinson’s [36, 37].

Interestingly, this experience of anxiety was not the only experience of the participants. Beth strongly felt that her anxiety experience was not negative and indeed she gained positives from it:

“Anxiety in a way helps because I don’t do silly things. I mean I was doing silly things before. I was taking risks. And anxiety of keeping myself intact is important, it makes me be careful. I’ve got to think about the next move. I sometimes get in position and think, now they make me have this on <points to pendant alarm> that I don’t want to call them whereas before I was falling stupidly all over the place and being silly about things, now my anxiety is useful. It’s not pleasant. It’s very unpleasant but it’s useful.”

(Beth, lines 406–418)

During the member checking process, Beth voiced this feeling further, explaining that her anxiety gave her a stronger sense of self-identity as it drove her to cope. During the member checking process, Beth likened it to the “climb of Everest on a daily basis”. As the only participant reporting a lifetime history of anxiety, it is unclear if this reflects the lived experience of anxiety in Parkinson’s or a unique experience to Beth; a further indication that a person-centred approach will be needed in an intervention. However, Bower et al. [121] report that pre-existing anxiety is likely a predictor of increased Parkinson’s risk, meaning many more PWPs may experience anxiety before the condition develops. There is little literature exploring positive perceptions and implications of anxiety. Kashdan et al. [122] suggest that social anxiety may play a role in shaping positive experiences and events. In Parkinson’s populations, Sotgiu and Rusconi [123] suggest that investigating the positive experiences of emotional events, such as anxiety, could lead to a greater understanding of the complex emotional landscape experienced by PWPs. Beth’s story seems to have revealed a new facet of the lived experience of anxiety in Parkinson’s that it would be beneficial to research further.

The findings of the theme “Anxiety is a funny thing” are echoed in other literature exploring experiences in Parkinson’s [29, 30]. Fluctuating physical symptoms and their impact on independence and safety have previously been associated with causing anxiety in PWPs [27, 30]. Though Sunvisson [29] suggested that the sense of loss of control manifests in late-stage Parkinson’s, the participants’ stories reveal that this is also evident in their experience of the early stages of the condition.

All participants reported anxiety about living with a progressive condition with an unpredictable course. This fear of the future was an important aspect of the participants’ perception and lived experience of anxiety:

“And it’s it’s always a constant thing in the back of your mind what’s going to happen in the future which also makes you think about things in a different light as well.”

(Alan, lines 221–224)

“I can see depending on the way the condition goes I could be more and more anxious about me and those around me. But I hope to hang on to the fact that it’s the way it is.”

(Edward, lines 325–329)

This has previously been identified in studies exploring the experience of Parkinson’s, including anxiety [30]. It could be that the fear of future is linked to worries wider than just physical deterioration, such as being unable to support a relative if they become sick or uncertainty regarding family and work roles [30, 124].

People with Parkinson’s who were involved in the patient and public involvement consultation that underpinned this study also expressed the ever-present nature of anxiety [34]. Due to the pathophysiology of Parkinson’s, it could be that the participants experience this feeling of omnipresent anxiety due to irreversible changes in brain biology [102, 125]. As previously cited, neurobiological theories for anxiety in Parkinson’s remain unconfirmed while psychosocial factors have been clearly expressed [93, 114, 126]. As a tentative suggestion, perhaps the underlying brain pathology of the condition coupled with the psychosocial factors identified in the literature means that PWPs are more vulnerable to experiencing the feeling of anxiety as ever-present [29, 114, 125].

While a neurological basis for anxiety in Parkinson’s is theorized, other factors have been articulated by PWPs [102, 114]. This suggests that interventional studies should move away from investigating strictly neurobiological solutions and encompass psychosocial and situational factors. Alan expressed this stance:

“And you can always be given tablets for things but that that isn’t the answer it’s about being able to overcome…”

(Alan, lines 239–242)

Proposed model of the experience of PWPs experience of anxiety

This study’s findings, alongside the existing literature, suggest that PWPs inhabit a lifeworld where anxiety is a multi-faceted experience that involves finding ways to cope, experiencing amplified symptoms, and is experienced in myriad ways. The preexisting literature of Parkinson’s-associated dopamine deficiency and the findings of this study suggest these facets are shaped by the individual’s neurobiology, experiences, and life context. As discussed in the introduction, the role of dopamine-deficiency in Parkinson’s contributes to a neurobiological underpinning to anxiety in Parkinson’s. Additionally, lifespan views of anxiety disorders espouse the importance of how individual experiences and context throughout life shape the manifestation of anxiety [127]. Considering all of these components, a lifeworld-led approach would be justified to ground care in human terms to promote participant health and well-being [128, 129].

In line with a lifeworld-led approach to care, a model of living with Parkinson’s is represented in Fig 1. Future interventions need to focus on the component parts to help a person live well with Parkinson’s. The model should not be understood in a deterministic way [52]. The components of the model may be differently proportioned depending on a person’s experience of living with Parkinson’s, which suggests assessment and intervention will need to be person centered. In terms of the individual components, for example, finding ways to cope suggests that self-management strategies may be a valued intervention within this population because of the importance PWPs place on being self-reliant in managing and coping with their anxiety. The next step is to explore whether this model holds true for the wider population of PWPs as a precursor to developing an intervention.

Limitations of the study

This research has been conducted in line with American Psychological Associations’ Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Research [46]. Its methodological strengths include a clear audit trail and the use of member checking and peer review. Despite this, it has limitations. Whilst the maximum variation criteria were met in terms of the experience of Parkinson’s, the sample was limited to a particular age range, social class, sexual orientation, and ethnic group. That is, the sample consisted of white, heterosexual, English speaking people in the South West of England who were financially stable and lived in their own home. As Parkinson’s affects people across all backgrounds, the study’s findings should be seen as an overture, and further work is required to apprehend the complete picture of the lived experience of anxiety in Parkinson’s.

Conclusion

This study is, as far as we are aware, the first of its kind to explore the lived experience of anxiety in Parkinson’s. The findings, although preliminary, have illuminated the complexity of the lived experience of anxiety for PWPs. Finding ways to cope is an important aspect of the anxiety experience, with value placed on self-reliance. It is important to recognise that not all participants found sharing their experience with others to be either positive or beneficial. People with Parkinson’s may experience anxiety in Parkinson’s as an amplification of symptoms; not only their physical signs but also their cognitive and emotional symptoms. This can often be more important to them; an important consideration particularly in hospitals where the management of physical symptoms usually takes precedence. It is essential that self-identity is considered with a deeper meaning, expanding beyond those of family and social roles. Anxiety is experienced in myriad ways both negatively and positively by PWPs. It is viewed as an ever-present, negative influence but can also be viewed as a positive force for PWPs to initiate action. This may require a shift in perspective of healthcare professionals changing their beliefs about anxiety in Parkinson’s and, in turn, how they provide person-centred care to this group.

Due to the limitations identified, the findings of this study should be considered preliminary and an invitation for further research to explore the lived experience of anxiety in Parkinson’s in richer depth. The multiple facets of the lived experience provide a basis for further research and this intelligence could then be used to develop an intervention for PWPs that focuses on their experiences rather than healthcare professional or researcher assumptions. Indeed, this study could be considered an open invitation to researchers working with those people with other long-term health conditions to explore the lived experience of anxiety. This could lead more collaborative working with those living with long-term health conditions to explore solutions that enable them to live their lives in the way of their choosing.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

S2 File

(DOCX)

S3 File

(DOCX)

S4 File

(DOCX)

S5 File

(DOCX)

S6 File

(DOCX)

S7 File

(DOCX)

S8 File

(DS_STORE)

S1 Data

(NVPX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the participants for sharing their experiences and their time, all of the patient and public involvement consultees to contributing to the design of this study, Mr Ben Elliott for his help in the consent process, and Parkinson’s UK for their support with both the patient and public involvement consultation and study recruitment.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

CL- This research was supported by the National Institute of Health Research (grant number MRES-2015-03-013-105). https://www.nihr.ac.uk/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.de Lau LML, Breteler MMB. Epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease. The Lancet Neurology. 2006;5(6):525–35. 10.1016/S1474-4422(06)70471-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Parkinson’s UK. Parkinson’s and You Online2014 [cited 2017 February]. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/puk-live-1-d8-ie/2017-03/Parkinson%27s%20and%20you.pdf.
  • 3.Barone P, Antonini A, Colosimo C, Marconi R, Morgante L, Avarello TP, et al. The PRIAMO study: A multicenter assessment of nonmotor symptoms and their impact on quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. Movement Disorders. 2009;24(11):1641–9. 10.1002/mds.22643 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Breen KC, Drutyte G. Non-motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease: The patient’s perspective. Journal of Neural Transmission. 2013;120(4):531–5. 10.1007/s00702-012-0928-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Walsh K, Bennett G. Parkinson ‘ s disease and anxiety. Post Graduate Medical Journal. 2001;(77):89–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Picillo M, Erro R, Amboni M, Longo K, Vitale C, Moccia M, et al. Non-motor symptoms in early Parkinson’s disease: A 2-year follow-up study on previously untreated patients. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry. 2013;84(1):14–7. 10.1136/jnnp-2012-303419 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Duncan GW, Khoo TK, Yarnall AJ, O’Brien JT, Coleman SY, Brooks DJ, et al. Health-related quality of life in early Parkinson’s disease: The impact of nonmotor symptoms. Movement Disorders. 2014;29(2):195–202. 10.1002/mds.25664 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hanna KK, Cronin-Golomb A. Impact of anxiety on quality of life in parkinson’s disease. Parkinson’s Disease. 2012;2012. 10.1155/2012/640707 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Leentjens aFG, Dujardin K, Marsh L, Martinez-Martin P, Richard IH, Starkstein SE. Anxiety and motor fluctuations in Parkinson’s disease: A cross-sectional observational study. Parkinsonism and Related Disorders. 2012;18(10):1084–8. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2012.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Pontone GM, Williams JR, Anderson K, Chase G, Goldstein S, Grill S, et al. Prevalence of Anxiety Disorders and Anxiety Subtypes in Patients With Parkinson’s Disease. Movement Disorders. 2009;24(9):1333–8. 10.1002/mds.22611 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hallion LS, Ruscio AM. Should uncontrollable worry be removed from the definition of GAD? A test of incremental validity. Journal of abnormal psychology. 2013;122(2):369–75. 10.1037/a0031731 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Coventry PA, Dickens C, Todd C. How does mental-physical multimorbidity express itself in lived time and space? A phenomenological analysis of encounters with depression and chronic physical illness. Social Science and Medicine. 2014;118(C):108–18. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kano O, Ikeda K, Cridebring D, Takazawa T, Yoshii Y, Iwasaki Y. Neurobiology of depression and anxiety in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinson’s disease. 2011;2011:143547-. 10.4061/2011/143547 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kienast T, Hariri AR, Schlagenhauf F, Wrase J, Sterzer P, Buchholz HG, et al. Dopamine in amygdala gates limbic processing of aversive stimuli in humans. Nature neuroscience. 2008;11(12):1381–2. 10.1038/nn.2222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Rosen JB, Schulkin J. From normal fear to pathological anxiety. Psychological Review. 1998;105(2):325–50. 10.1037/0033-295x.105.2.325 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Richard IH, Frank S, McDermott MP, Wang H, Justus AW, LaDonna KA, et al. The ups and downs of Parkinson disease: a prospective study of mood and anxiety fluctuations. Cogn Behav Neurol. 2004;17(4):201–7. Epub 2004/12/29. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wells A. A Cognitive Model of Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Behavior Modification. 1999;23(4):526–55. 10.1177/0145445599234002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hofmann SG, Ellard KK, Siegle GJ. Neurobiological correlates of cognitions in fear and anxiety: a cognitive-neurobiological information-processing model. Cognition & Emotion. 2012;26(2):282–99. Epub 2011/08/03. 10.1080/02699931.2011.579414 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Richard IH. Anxiety disorders in Parkinson’s disease. Advances in neurology. 2005;96:42–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Burn DJ, Landau S, Hindle JV, Samuel M, Wilson KC, Hurt CS, et al. Parkinson’s disease motor subtypes and mood. Movement Disorders. 2012;27(3):379–86. 10.1002/mds.24041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ehgoetz Martens Ka, Ellard CG, Almeida QJ. Does Anxiety Cause Freezing of Gait in Parkinson’s Disease? PLoS ONE. 2014;9(9):e106561–e. 10.1371/journal.pone.0106561 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Moore O, Peretz C, Giladi N. Freezing of gait affects quality of life of peoples with Parkinson’s disease beyond its relationships with mobility and gait. Movement Disorders. 2007;22(15):2192–5. 10.1002/mds.21659 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Stegemöller EL, Nocera J, Malaty I, Shelley M, Okun MS, Hass CJ. Timed up and go, cognitive, and quality-of-life correlates in Parkinson’s disease. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2014;95(4):649–55. 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.10.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Va Goodwin, Richards SH, Henley W, Ewings P, Taylor AH, Campbell JL. An exercise intervention to prevent falls in people with Parkinson’s disease: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. 2011;82(11):1232–8. 10.1136/jnnp-2011-300919 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Shah S, Nolen A. Movement deficits in Parkinson’s disease and restorative occupational therapy. New Zealand Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2006;53(2):12–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Prediger RDS, Matheus FC, Schwarzbold ML, Lima MMS, Vital MABF. Anxiety in Parkinson’s disease: A critical review of experimental and clinical studies. Neuropharmacology. 2012;62(1):115–24. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.08.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rahman S, Griffin HJ, Quinn NP, Jahanshahi M. On the nature of fear of falling in Parkinson’s disease. Behavioural Neurology. 2011;24(3):219–28. 10.3233/BEN-2011-0330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lindesay J, Stewart R, Bisla J. Anxiety disorders in older people. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology. 2012;22(03):204–17. 10.1017/S0959259812000019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sunvisson H. Stopped within a track: embodied experiences of late-stage Parkinson’s disease. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being. 2006;1(2):91–9. 10.1080/17482620500487547 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wressle E, Engstrand C, Granérus A-K. Living with Parkinson’s disease: Elderly patients and relatives perspective on daily living. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal. 2007;54(2):131–9. 10.1111/j.1440-1630.2006.00610.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Deane KHO, Flaherty H, Daley DJ, Pascoe R, Penhale B, Clarke CE, et al. Priority setting partnership to identify the top 10 research priorities for the management of Parkinson’s disease. BMJ Open. 2014;4(12):e006434–e. 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006434 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Todorova A, Jenner P, Chaudhuri KR. Non-motor Parkinson’s: integral to motor Parkinson’s, yet often neglected. Practical neurology. 2014;14(5):310–22. 10.1136/practneurol-2013-000741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. 2008. 1756–1833; 0959-535X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lovegrove CJ, Bannigan K, Cheeseman D, Latour JM. The involvement of people with Parkinson’s in designing a study of the lived experience of anxiety. British Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2017:1–8. 10.1177/0308022617700654 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lopez KA, Willis DG. Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: their contributions to nursing knowledge. Qual Health Res. 2004;14(5):726–35. Epub 2004/04/27. 10.1177/1049732304263638 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sokolowski R. Introduction to Phenomenology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Husserl E. Ideas. London: Routledge; 1931. 1–376 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.van Manen M, Higgins I, van der Riet P. A conversation with Max van Manen on phenomenology in its original sense. Nurs Health Sci. 2016;18(1):4–7. Epub 2016/03/05. 10.1111/nhs.12274 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Finlay L. Phenomenology for Therapists: Researching the Lived World. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chan ZC, Fung Y, Chien W. Bracketing in phenomenology: Only undertaken in the data collection and analysis process? The Qualitative Report. 2013;18(59):1–9. 10.1057/9781137326072.0007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Cosgrove J, Alty JE, Jamieson S. Cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease. Postgraduate medical journal. 2015;91(1074):212–20. 10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133247 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mental Capacity Act. London: The Stationery Office; 2005.
  • 43.Parkinson’s UK. Recruit participants to your study Online2016 [cited 2017 February]. https://www.parkinsons.org.uk/content/recruit-participants-your-study.
  • 44.MacMahon DG, Thomas S. Practical approach to quality of life in Parkinson’s disease: the nurse’s role. Journal of neurology. 1998;245(1):19–22. 10.1007/pl00007732 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ethnicity facts and figures Online2020 [updated 2020; cited 2020 August 2020]. https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/style-guide/ethnic-groups.
  • 46.Qualitative Research Design (JARS-Qual) Online: American Psychological Association; 2018 [cited 2020 August]. https://apastyle.apa.org/jars/qualitative.
  • 47.DiCicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF. The qualitative research interview. Medical Education. 2006;40(4):314–21. 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Elmir R, Schmied V, Jackson D, Wilkes L. Interviewing people about potentially sensitive topics. Nurse Researcher. 2011;19(1):12–6. 10.7748/nr2011.10.19.1.12.c8766 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bevan MT. A Method of Phenomenological Interviewing. Qualitative Health Research. 2014;24(1):136–44. 10.1177/1049732313519710 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Easton KL, McCormish JF, Greenberg R. Avoiding Common Pitfalls in Qualitative Data Collection and Transcription. Qualitative Health Research. 2000;10(5):703–7. 10.1177/104973200129118651 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Englander M. The Interview: Data Collection in Descriptive Phenomenological Human Scientific Research*. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology. 2012;43(1):13–35. 10.1163/156916212X632943 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Galvin KT, Todres L. Kinds of well-being: A conceptual framework that provides direction for caring. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2011;6(4). Epub 2011/12/16. 10.3402/qhw.v6i4.10362 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Patton MQ. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. 4 ed: SAGE Publications; 2015. 832- p. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Finlay L. Engaging Phenomenological Analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2014;11(2):121–41. 10.1080/14780887.2013.807899 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Finlay L. Debating Phenomenological Research Methods. Phenomenology & Practice. 2009;3(1):6–25. 10.1007/978-94-6091-834-6_2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Braun V, Clarke V. What can "thematic analysis" offer health and wellbeing researchers? International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being. 2014;9:26152-. 10.3402/qhw.v9.26152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Vaismoradi M, Snelgrove S. Theme in Qualitative Content Analysis and Thematic Analysis. Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2019;20(3):1438–5627. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 32100154 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Maher C, Hadfield M, Hutchings M, de Eyto A. Ensuring Rigor in Qualitative Data Analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2018;17(1). 10.1177/1609406918786362 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Green J, Willis K, Hughes E, Small R, Welch N, Gibbs L, et al. Generating best evidence from qualitative research: The role of data analysis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 2007;31(6):545–50. 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00141.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.International QSR. Nvivo. Melbourne: QSR International; 2012.
  • 62.Reilly RC. Found poems, member checking, and crises of representation. The Qualitative Report. 2013;18(15):1–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2017;16(1). 10.1177/1609406917733387 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Houghton C, Casey D, Shaw D, Murphy K. Rigour in qualitative case-study research. Nurse Researcher. 2013;20(4):12–7. 10.7748/nr2013.03.20.4.12.e326 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health services research. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1189–208. 10.4135/9781412985727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, Campbell C, Walter F. Member Checking: A Tool to Enhance Trustworthiness or Merely a Nod to Validation? Qualitative health research. 2016. 10.1177/1049732316654870 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Vaismoradi M, Jones J, Turunen H, Snelgrove S. Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice. 2016;6(5). 10.5430/jnep.v6n5p100 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Frazier LD, Waid LD. Influences on anxiety in later life: the role of health status, health perceptions, and health locus of control. Aging & Mental Health. 1999;3(3):213–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Skidmore JR, Dyson SJ, Kupper AE, Calabrese D. Predicting illness behavior: Health anxiety mediated by locus of control. American Journal of Health Behavior. 2014;38(5):699–707. 10.5993/AJHB.38.5.7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Gallagher DA, Schrag A. Psychosis, apathy, depression and anxiety in Parkinson’s disease. Neurobiology of Disease. 2012;46(3):581–9. 10.1016/j.nbd.2011.12.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Tan LCS. Mood disorders in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders. 2012;18:S74–S6. 10.1016/S1353-8020(11)70024-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Chinman M, George P, Dougherty RH, Daniels AS, Ghose SS, Swift A, et al. Peer Support Services for Individuals With Serious Mental Illnesses: Assessing the Evidence. Psychiatric Services. 2014;65(4):429–41. 10.1176/appi.ps.201300244 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Gidugu V, Rogers ES, Harrington S, Maru M, Johnson G, Cohee J, et al. Individual Peer Support: A Qualitative Study of Mechanisms of Its Effectiveness. Community Mental Health Journal. 2015;51(4):445–52. 10.1007/s10597-014-9801-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Legg M, Occhipinti S, Ferguson M, Dunn J, Chambers SK. When peer support may be most beneficial: The relationship between upward comparison and perceived threat. Psycho-Oncology. 2011;20(12):1358–62. 10.1002/pon.1862 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Reynolds J, Griffiths K, Christensen H. Anxiety and depression—online resources and management tools. Australian family physician. 2011;40(6):382–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Wills TA. Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin. 1981;90(2):245–71. 10.1037/0033-2909.90.2.245 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Collins RL. For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations. Psychological Bulletin. 1996;119(1):51–69. 10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.51 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Yip JJ, Kelly AE. Upward and downward social comparisons can decrease prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2013;43(3):591–602. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2013.01039.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Beutler LE, Moos RH, Lane G. Coping, treatment planning, and treatment outcome: Discussion. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2003;59(10):1151–67. 10.1002/jclp.10216 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Gárriz M, Gutiérrez F, Peri JM, Baillés E, Torrubia R. Coping strategies within a personality space. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015;80:96–100. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Bain SA, McGroarty A, Runcie M. Coping strategies, self-esteem and levels of interrogative suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015;75:85–9. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Barnes J, Connelly V, Boubert L, Maravic K. Behavioural coping patterns in Parkinson’s patients with visual hallucinations. Journal of Neuropsychology. 2013;7(2):326–34. 10.1111/jnp.12016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Drummond S, Brough P. Proactive coping and preventive coping: Evidence for two distinct constructs? Personality and Individual Differences. 2016;92:123–7. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.029 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Gino F, Brooks AW, Schweitzer ME. Anxiety, advice, and the ability to discern: Feeling anxious motivates individuals to seek and use advice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2012;102(3):497–512. 10.1037/a0026413 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Krohne HW, Hock M. Anxiety, coping strategies, and the processing of threatening information: Investigations with cognitive-experimental paradigms. Personality and Individual Differences. 2011;50(7):916–25. 10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Hurt CS, Landau S, Burn DJ, Hindle JV, Samuel M, Wilson K, et al. Cognition, coping, and outcome in Parkinson’s disease. International Psychogeriatrics. 2012;24(10):1656–63. 10.1017/S1041610212000749 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Murphy JM, Leighton aH. Anxiety: its role in the history of psychiatric epidemiology. Psychological medicine. 2009;39(7):1055–64. 10.1017/S0033291708004625 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Rapee RM, Peters L, Carpenter L, Gaston JE. The Yin and Yang of support from significant others: Influence of general social support and partner support of avoidance in the context of treatment for social anxiety disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2015;69:40–7. 10.1016/j.brat.2015.03.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Kinderman P, Tai S, Pontin E, Schwannauer M, Jarman I, Lisboa P. Causal and mediating factors for anxiety, depression and well-being. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2015;206(6):456–60. 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.147553 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Ozbay F, Johnson DC, Dimoulas E, Morgan CA, Charney D, Southwick S. Social support and resilience to stress: from neurobiology to clinical practice. Psychiatry (Edgmont (Pa: Township)). 2007;4(5):35–40. None. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.McInnis GJ. A phenomenological exploration of loneliness in the older adult: EBSCOhost. Washington: 1999. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 93.Wolitzky-Taylor KB, Castriotta N, Lenze EJ, Stanley MA, Craske MG. Anxiety disorders in older adults: A comprehensive review. Depression and Anxiety. 2010;27(2):190–211. 10.1002/da.20653 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Lutz SG, Holmes JD, Ready EA, Jenkins ME, Johnson AM. Clinical Presentation of Anxiety in Parkinsons Disease: A Scoping Review. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health. 2016;36(3):134–47. 10.1177/1539449216661714 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Karlsen KH, Tandberg E, Årsland D, Larsen JP. Health related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease: a prospective longitudinal study. J Neurol Psychiatry. 2000. 10.1136/jnnp.69.5.584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Maloney EA, Sattizahn JR, Beilock SL. Anxiety and cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. 2014;5(4):403–11. 10.1002/wcs.1299 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Foster PS, Drago V, Yung RC, Skidmore FM, Skoblar B, Shenal BV, et al. Anxiety affects working memory only in left hemibody onset Parkinson disease patients. Cognitive and behavioral neurology: official journal of the Society for Behavioral and Cognitive Neurology. 2010;23(1):14–8. 10.1097/WNN.0b013e3181cc8be9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Vytal KE, Cornwell BR, Letkiewicz AM, Arkin NE, Grillon C. The complex interaction between anxiety and cognition: insight from spatial and verbal working memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2013;7(March):1–11. 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00093 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Peterson DS, King LA, Cohen RG, Horak FB. Cognitive Contributions to Freezing of Gait in Parkinson Disease: Implications for Physical Rehabilitation. Physical Therapy. 2016;96(5):659–70. 10.2522/ptj.20140603 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Blonder LX, Slevin JT. Emotional dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease. Behavioural Neurology. 2011;24(3):201–17. 10.3233/BEN-2011-0329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Pachana NA, Egan SJ, Laidlaw K, Dissanayaka N, Byrne GJ, Brockman S, et al. Clinical issues in the treatment of anxiety and depression in older adults with Parkinson’s disease. Movement Disorders. 2013;28(14):1930–4. 10.1002/mds.25689 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Wen MC, Chan LL, Tan LCS, Tan EK. Depression, anxiety, and apathy in Parkinson’s disease: insights from neuroimaging studies. European journal of neurology. 2016;23(6):1001–19. 10.1111/ene.13002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Wagstaff C, Williams B. Specific design features of an interpretative phenomenological analysis study. Nurse researcher. 2014;21(3):8–12. 10.7748/nr2014.01.21.3.8.e1226 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Ahlström G. Experiences of loss and chronic sorrow in persons with severe chronic illness. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2007;16(3a):76–83. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01580.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Delmar C, Bøje T, Dylmer D, Forup L, Jakobsen C, Møller M, et al. Achieving harmony with oneself: life with a chronic illness. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. 2005;19(3):204–12. 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2005.00334.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Sheridan NF, Kenealy TW, Kidd JD, Schmidt-Busby JIG, Hand JE, Raphael DL, et al. Patients’ engagement in primary care: powerlessness and compounding jeopardy. A qualitative study. Health expectations: an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2015;18(1):32–43. Epub 2012/10/04. 10.1111/hex.12006 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Margaretha Strandmark K. Ill health is powerlessness: a phenomenological study about worthlessness, limitations and suffering. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. 2004;18(2):135–44. 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2004.00275.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Vanhooren S. Struggling with meaninglessness: a case study from an experiential–existential perspective. Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies. 2019;18(1):1–21. 10.1080/14779757.2019.1572029 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Kolev OI, Georgieva-Zhostova SO, Berthoz A. Anxiety changes depersonalization and derealization symptoms in vestibular patients. Behavioural Neurology. 2014;2014. 10.1155/2014/847054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Michal M, Adler J, Wiltink J, Reiner I, Tschan R, Wölfling K, et al. A case series of 223 patients with depersonalization-derealization syndrome. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16(1):203-. 10.1186/s12888-016-0908-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Hunter ECM, Sierra M, David AS. The epidemiology of depersonalisation and derealisation—A systematic review. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2004;39(1):9–18. 10.1007/s00127-004-0701-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Schwartz SJ, Kilmstra TA, Luyckx K, Hale WW Iii, Frijns T, Oosterwegel A, et al. Daily Dynamics of Personal Identity and Self-concept Clarity. European Journal of Personality. 2011;25:373–85. [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Lee RM, Robbins SB. The relationship between social connectedness and anxiety, self-esteem, and social identity. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1998;45(3):338–45. 10.1037/0022-0167.45.3.338 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Soundy A, Stubbs B, Roskell C. The Experience of Parkinson ‘ s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Ethnography. 2014;2014. 10.1155/2014/613592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Meco G, Rubino A, Caravona N, Valente M. Sexual dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism and Related Disorders. 2008;14(6):451–6. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2007.10.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Hand A, Gray WK, Chandler BJ, Walker RW. Sexual and relationship dysfunction in people with Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism and Related Disorders. 2010;16(3):172–6. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2009.10.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Odiyoor M, Kobylecki C, Hackett RJ, Silverdale MA, Kellett MW. Pramipexole and gender identity disorder: Expanding the phenotype of hypersexuality in Parkinson’s disease. Movement Disorders. 2009;24(16):NA-NA. 10.1002/mds.22848 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Ehgoetz Martens Ka, Pieruccini-Faria F, Almeida QJ. Could sensory mechanisms be a core factor that underlies freezing of gait in Parkinson’s disease? PloS one. 2013;8(5):e62602–e. 10.1371/journal.pone.0062602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Cornwell EY, Waite LJ. Social Disconnectedness, Perceived Isolation, and Health among Older Adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2009;50(1):31–48. 10.1177/002214650905000103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Biundo R, Weis L, Antonini A. Cognitive decline in Parkinson’s disease: the complex picture. npj Parkinson’s Disease. 2016;2(1):16018-. 10.1038/npjparkd.2016.18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Bower JH, Grossardt BR, Maraganore DM, Ahlskog JE, Colligan RC, Geda YE, et al. Anxious Personality Predicts an Increased Risk of Parkinson’s. Movement Disorders. 2010;25(13):2105–13. 10.1002/mds.23230 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Kashdan TB, Weeks JW, Savostyanova AA. Whether, how, and when social anxiety shapes positive experiences and events: A self-regulatory framework and treatment implications. Clinical Psychology Review. 2011;31(5):786–99. 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.03.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Sotgiu I, Rusconi ML. Investigating emotions in Parkinson’s disease: what we know and what we still don’t know. Frontiers in Psychology. 2013;4(June):1–5. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Ravenek MJ. Managing Uncertainty in Young-Onset Parkinson’s Disease 2014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 125.Chaudhuri KR, Schapira AHV. Non-motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease: dopaminergic pathophysiology and treatment. The Lancet Neurology. 2009;8(5):464–74. 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70068-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Maillet A, Krack P, Lhommee E, Metereau E, Klinger H, Favre E, et al. The prominent role of serotonergic degeneration in apathy, anxiety and depression in de novo Parkinson’s disease. Brain. 2016;139(Pt 9):2486–502. Epub 2016/08/20. 10.1093/brain/aww162 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Lenze EJ, Wetherell JL. A lifespan view of anxiety disorders. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13(4):381–99. 10.31887/DCNS.2011.13.4/elenze . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Dahlberg K, Todres L, Galvin K. Lifeworld-led healthcare is more than patient-led care: an existential view of well-being. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2009;12(3):265–71. 10.1007/s11019-008-9174-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Hemingway A. Lifeworld-led care: Is it relevant for well-being and the fifth wave of public health action? International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being. 2011;6(4): Epub 2011/12/09. 10.3402/qhw.v6i4.10364 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Rosemary Frey

16 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-03238

What is the lived experience of anxiety for people with Parkinson’s? A phenomenological study

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Lovegrove,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please pay particular attention to revising ethnic categorisations.  Please provide more support for the use of a phenomenological approach.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 17 May 2020. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rosemary Frey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1.    Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the interview used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the study. For instance, if you developed an interview guide as part of this study and it is not under a copyright license more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a very interesting area of research and it is important that it is published.

Specific comments:

Reference for your opening statement? and most common disease.

Sense Line 87? It has also been identified that excessive anxiety in

87 PWPs results in a higher frequency of motor fluctuations,8, 9 not the severity.

Explain this assertion that anxiety is experienced differently : Walsh and Bennett 4 highlight that PWPs experience more anxiety than people with multiple sclerosis. This suggests that these individuals experience anxiety differently to other populations, and that an earlier age of anxiety onset in Parkinson’s could be an indicator of higher levels of anxiety.

Line 121-122 – Punctuation

Line 151 & line 156 – ethnic description by colour is not broadly internationally accepted as a descriptor - can you re-code or classify ethnicity?

Line 151 – please clarify sentence – currently I am wondering if participants who were married were also in relationships with different sex partners.

Not a complete sentence: As PWPs can experience cognitive deficits, 171 36 which can hinder their ability to give informed consent regarding individual decisions. 37

Line 175 – for those readers not familiar with the Metal Act or UK healthcare, was there any validated tools as part of the metal capacity assessment - or perhaps detail this more.

Word form errors e.g., differences perspectives

General comments: The conflation of the results and the discussion in the final section makes the display of evidence to support the thematic analysis more difficult to follow. Please separate these two sections out. Using more sub-headings also would help the reader. It is quite a laborious read currently as you pick off each of the layers in your theme table, present each one, discuss each one and continue on to the next. Results presentation could be more succinct, combining and summarising other supporting literature and changing sentence structures for variation - (Example lines 256-259 - Sunvisson 21 observed the importance of the support of others

257 when encountering increasingly stressful situations. Rapee, Peters 60 recognised

258 that family support or significant others is not only a protective factor in anxiety but

259 also a positive influence in reducing distress and accessing support.

(Reformulation example) Relational support has been found to be important in stressful situations (21), having a protective role and assisting to reduce distress (60).

Use the discussion to bring the strands together to support your Figure 1 summary and decide if your data does provide sufficient support. There is a disconnect between Table 1 and Figure 1 which a discussion section would take care of. The article would do well to also be shorter in length.

Use of participant voice in the article – good to have a coding system so that the reader can see if the quotes are coming from different participants within your dataset. Eg lines 581, 587

Lines 257 Rapee?

Reviewer #2: This manuscript describes a study which takes a phenomenological approach to understanding the lived experience of anxiety in Parkinson’s. The literature review is thorough and clearly provides a rationale for this work, as anxiety when living with Parkinson’s is not yet well understood. The topic is important as it could inform future interventions to improve the quality of life of people with Parkinson’s and their families.

I like the study, but I think there is more that could be done to improve its quality. My biggest concern is that it purports to be a phenomenological study, but doesn’t really position itself well in that way. By this I mean, I think there needs to be a stronger rationale for taking a phenomenological approach, over other qualitative approaches. I agree that a phenomenological approach is absolutely appropriate and what is needed, but I think the authors could go further to better represent phenomenology, especially as it may be a new or unfamiliar approach to many readers of this journal.

I think more could be done in this direction at the beginning to introduce the principals of phenomenology and why they are best suited to answer the research question. I quite like the mix of results and discussion as those references to theoretical concepts and previous literature are incorporated in a way that brings deeper explanations to the findings. However, while the (largely) psychological theories cited are useful for making sense of the findings, I think there is room for introducing some more phenomenological concepts here. Particularly, I think the elements of the lifeworld would help to explore more deeply some participants’ experiences, e.g. in terms of sociability or identity. Also, I think there is some work around lifeworld-led care (care informed by phenomenological work) that could be drawn upon in making recommendations for interventions and future research. I have taken the liberty of including some references related to this, which I think the authors might find useful.

More detail on each section of the paper is below.

Abstract

Themes don’t emerge – Braun & Clarke paper – this belittles the work you put in as a researcher making sense of the data.

[Braun, V., Clarke, V. & Weate, P. (2016). Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise research. In B. Smith & A. C. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 191-205). London: Routledge. – accessible for download when googled]

Theme titles tend to work better if there is an experiential element to them, especially if the work is designed to be phenomenological. More on this below.

In myriad ways – rather than in a myriad of ways.

Data Availability

• Is it possible to make all data available without restriction. It’s important in work like this that the data are treated carefully to ensure there are no unexpected breaches of confidentiality, which can be particularly difficult to manage with data of this kind. [See – BPS statement: https://twitter.com/healthpsycleeds/status/1248333598840819712 available on twitter; Wiley has a useful page too: https://authorservices.wiley.com/open-research/open-data/index.html]

When you say “data” can be added, what are you referring to? Is this anonymised transcripts or something else? It is very important to be clear about what kind of data are shared, that appropriate permissions are in place, and that data are anonymised as far as is possible. Note: even full copies of anonymised transcripts can be a risk because anonymity can never be fully guaranteed.

Introduction

Line 84 – this is of concern

Line 87 – not severity – delete the

Freezing of gait needs some explanation, even just that this is a common motor problem experienced by PWP in case there are readers without background knowledge of PD.

The link to the unexpected finding about not being able to provide care needs a little more explanation or introduction. It’s difficult to know why this is relevant here.

Line 117 – I don’t think you need the word highlighted

Materials and method

I’m not sure there is sufficient justification here for using phenomenology. What I mean by that is, why phenomenology over another qualitative approach? The rationale provided is a basic rationale for a qualitative, exploratory approach, but not specifically a phenomenological approach. I think a little more detail is required here to illustrate, perhaps to a reader new to phenomenology, why this approach is particularly useful here.

Line 142 – Parkinson’s UK’s ‘Reseach Support Network’ – insert apostrophe after UK OR write as Parkinson’s UK Research Support Network.

What is meant by a de facto relationship with different sex partners? This requires definition.

There is some repetition in this section which can be deleted.

Was the Bevan interview scheduled referenced or was it used? Was it adapted or used in its original form? It’d be helpful to include the schedule that was used in a figure or table, citing Bevan.

I would like to see more detail on what is involved in the bracketing process as outlined by Chan, Fung and Chien. Bracketing will be new to some readers, but even to those familiar with/expert in phenomenology, there are many ways of engaging in bracketing and so further detail here would increase transparency.

As above, there are many phenomenological methods of analysis and while some readers may be familiar with Moustakas’ approach, I think it’s worth including some more detail about how this works in practice. What does it add, specifically, to the process or perhaps the underlying objective of the thematic analysis?

A definition of trustworthiness would be helpful. Also, it would be helpful to describe what a theme is – perhaps with the help of Braun & Clarke’s work or that of Moustakas so the reader can then see how a discussion of a theme would be helpful in creating a set of themes that adequately & appropriately represent participants’ lived experience.

Some of the above is explained by way of describing the consultation with participants, but it’d help to elaborate on the process within supervision too.

Results and discussion

I’m not sure the theme titles denote phenomenological themes. I would expect to see something of the quality of the experience within the theme title, as a heuristic would – something which points toward the meaning of the experience as lived rather than use of a simple descriptor.

I think the ‘in vivo’ extracts you use in the text offer that experiential quality a phenomenological analysis should have. I would therefore include these quotations as part of the theme titles, both here and in the abstract.

Table: I don’t think you need to include the note about the sub-categories which didn’t make the cut. That will then make it much clearer that these sub-categories were clustered to create the themes presented.

Line 216 – UK spelling: behaviour

Line 217 – different perspectives – not differences

Please attribute quotations to a participant code/pseudonym. That we know if they’re male or female & can see how many contributed to each theme in different ways, thus building up a picture of each individual as we move through the results.

Line 264 – no need for possessive apostrophe – participants – just plural

I wonder if it’s also worth mentioning a sense of belonging or perhaps a sense of not being alone – as well as the upward/downward social comparisons. These are ‘valid’ interpretations, but don’t really speak to the phenomenological approach being taken. I think reference to some phenomenological constructs here (& elsewhere) would be helpful (e.g. Heidegger’s notion of being-with).

Line 439 – important – not importance

In discussing the sense of identity and changes in roles (from partner to carer, carer to Carer) I think there’s a missed opportunity to bring in the phenomenological elements of the lifeworld (here & elsewhere, but here, specifcially), e.g. sociability, sometimes referred to as intersubjectivity. As suggested above, I think the analysis works well & I like the reference to existing literature & theoretical explanations, but I think there’s a need to consult a more phenomenological literature in doing this for it to be more coherent with the methodological approach taken.

Line 521 – no apostrophe, participants is just plural, not possessive

I think in the final theme of perceptions it’s worth thinking about the role of meaning and meaninglessness in experiences of anxiety with PD. Meaninglessness can lead to a feeling of powerlessness; it might be that meaninglessness or uncertainty which comes with Parkinson’s which contributes to anxiety. Also, this would offer another opportunity to bring in a more phenomenological reading of the participants’ accounts.

Also, when discussion psychosocial interventions, there’s a missed opportunity here to talk of the need for a person-centred approach, or indeed a lifeworld-led approach (see Galvin & Todres’ work) when developing interventions to help reduce anxiety among PWP.

I think the findings related to the positive experience or positive meanings of anxiety in Parkinson’s is really interesting and points towards some social gerontology work on the co-existence of vulnerability and strengths, dependence and independence, suffering and wellbeing, especially in older age or in chronic illness (Grenier). I think this applies very well here and could drawn upon.

This counters your later discussion of the focus in much research on PD that is neurology, neurological treatment, and essentially, a cure. This doesn’t help those living with PD now and it doesn’t help them come to terms with their own experience of it.

I think your model demonstrates this need for a multifaceted approach to PD very well. I really like it! I wonder if you could refer to that a little earlier in the discussion of your findings so that we build a picture of it as we read – rather than leading to it as a crescendo at the end. (I think some signposting to the model is necessary throughout the discussion because of the way you’ve structured it as results and discussion together.) Also, this multifaceted notion of living well with Parkinson’s and anxiety speaks to the need to focus on the lifeworld – all the elements in a person’s experience, not simply their neurobiology. I think this case could be made more strongly by the introduction of some phenomenological theory and by emphasising the need for a phenomenological approach to fully understand the lived experience of PWP and thus to develop interventions that will boost their quality of life.

Some papers you may wish to read to help with integrating the phenomenological constructs throughout are below:

Baars, J., & Phillipson, C. (2013). Connecting meaning with social structure: theoretical foundations. In J. Baarsm, J. Dohmen, A. Grenier & C. Phillipson (Eds.), Ageing, meaning and social structure: connecting critical and humanistic gerontology (pp. 11_30). Bristol: Polity Press.

Galvin, K., & Todres, L. (2011). Kinds of well-being: A conceptual framework that provides direction for caring. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health & Wellbeing, 6, 10362. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhwv6i4.10362 Galvin, K., & Todres, L. (2013). Caring and well-being: A lifeworld approach. London: Routledge.

Aston, L., Shaw, R.L., & Knibb, R.C. (2019). Preliminary development of proxy-rated quality-of-life scales for children and adults with Niemann-Pick type C. Quality of Life Research, 28(11), 3083-3092.

Smith, L.J. & Shaw, R.L. (2016). Learning to live with Parkinson’s disease in the family unit: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of well-being. Medicine, Health Care & Philosophy. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-016-9716-3.

COREC is of course are the standards used in medical and health research to appraise the quality of qualitative research. They are useful, but don’t always fit every approach to qualitative research, and I’m not sure they’re that useful for assessing phenomenological work. You may instead wish to cite the American Psychological Associations’ Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Research: https://apastyle.apa.org/jars/qualitative

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 8;16(4):e0249390. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249390.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Aug 2020

Dear Rosemary Frey,

Response to Reviewers: What is the lived experience of anxiety for people with Parkinson’s? A phenomenological study (PONE-D-20-03238)

Thank you for your response to our article, following the peer review process. We appreciate the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript and are grateful for the positive feedback which was very encouraging. We have provided a point by point response to the points the reviewers suggested need to be addressed.

Comments to the Author: Reviewer #1

• Reference for your opening statement? and most common disease.

Reference (de Lau and Breteler, 2006) has been added to text.

• Sense Line 87? It has also been identified that excessive anxiety in 87 PWPs results in a higher frequency of motor fluctuations,8, 9 not the severity.

Sentence rewritten to improve the sense of the sentence

• Explain this assertion that anxiety is experienced differently: Walsh and Bennett 4 highlight that PWPs experience more anxiety than people with multiple sclerosis. This suggests that these individuals experience anxiety differently to other populations, and that an earlier age of anxiety onset in Parkinson’s could be an indicator of higher levels of anxiety.

Sentence rewritten to be more explicit about the differences and reduce confusion. Additional detail about why people with Parkinson’s experience anxiety differently has also been added.

• Line 121-122 – Punctuation

It was not clear to the authors what punctuation was being referred to so no change has been made. Please can you clarify what the specific issue is.

• Line 151 & line 156 – ethnic description by colour is not broadly internationally accepted as a descriptor - can you re-code or classify ethnicity?

We have assumed this is referring to the reference to the word white but we are not completely sure what you are driving at here. In https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/style-guide/ethnic-groups white is used as a term in the list of ethnic groups. Have we misunderstood what you are driving at?

• Line 151 – please clarify sentence – currently I am wondering if participants who were married were also in relationships with different sex partners.

The sentences related to this have been amended to address this comment.

• Not a complete sentence: As PWPs can experience cognitive deficits, 171 36 which can hinder their ability to give informed consent regarding individual decisions. 37

This has been amended.

• Line 175 – for those readers not familiar with the Metal Act or UK healthcare, was there any validated tools as part of the metal capacity assessment - or perhaps detail this more.

A reference has been added to the text in response to this comment.

• Word form errors e.g., differences perspectives

The text has been amended to remove this error. Other errors, identified when re-reading of the text (and in response to reviewer 2 ‘s comments), have also been amended.

• General comments: The conflation of the results and the discussion in the final section makes the display of evidence to support the thematic analysis more difficult to follow. Please separate these two sections out. Using more sub-headings also would help the reader. It is quite a laborious read currently as you pick off each of the layers in your theme table, present each one, discuss each one and continue on to the next. Results presentation could be more succinct, combining and summarising other supporting literature and changing sentence structures for variation - (Example lines 256-259 - Sunvisson 21 observed the importance of the support of others 257 when encountering increasingly stressful situations. Rapee, Peters 60 recognised 258 that family support or significant others is not only a protective factor in anxiety but 259 also a positive influence in reducing distress and accessing support. (Reformulation example) Relational support has been found to be important in stressful situations (21), having a protective role and assisting to reduce distress (60).

It was hard to know how to respond to these comments because the conflation of findings and discussion is a convention that is widely used in reporting qualitative research. The second reviewer also liked this approach. We have maintained the approach of incorporating the findings and discussion but have tightened up the text so that there is greater clarity about the distinct parts.

The text has been changed to reflect the reformulation suggested.

• Use the discussion to bring the strands together to support your Figure 1 summary and decide if your data does provide sufficient support. There is a disconnect between Table 1 and Figure 1 which a discussion section would take care of. The article would do well to also be shorter in length.

In light of these comments, and reviewer 2’s comments, we have removed table 1 and formally identified figure 1 as a model with additional explanatory text. We hope this has resolved this issue.

• Use of participant voice in the article – good to have a coding system so that the reader can see if the quotes are coming from different participants within your dataset. Eg lines 581, 587

Lines 257 Rapee?

We have amended the text to reflect the names (pseudonyms) of the participants (and the transcript line numbers) associated with each quote to demonstrate that the responses are drawn from the full range of participants’ responses.

Lines 257 Rapee? – This is an author rather than a respondent. This should be clearer now that the participants names are cited after each quotation.

Comments to the Author: Reviewer #2

• I like the study, but I think there is more that could be done to improve its quality. My biggest concern is that it purports to be a phenomenological study, but doesn’t really position itself well in that way. By this I mean, I think there needs to be a stronger rationale for taking a phenomenological approach, over other qualitative approaches. I agree that a phenomenological approach is absolutely appropriate and what is needed, but I think the authors could go further to better represent phenomenology, especially as it may be a new or unfamiliar approach to many readers of this journal.

Thank you for your encouraging comments. We have rewritten the justification of the study to better represent it as a phenomenological study. We hope that we have gone into sufficient depth whilst still being concise.

• I I quite like the mix of results and discussion as those references to theoretical concepts and previous literature are incorporated in a way that brings deeper explanations to the findings. However, while the (largely) psychological theories cited are useful for making sense of the findings, I think there is room for introducing some more phenomenological concepts here. Particularly, I think the elements of the lifeworld would help to explore more deeply some participants’ experiences, e.g. in terms of sociability or identity. Also, I think there is some work around lifeworld-led care (care informed by phenomenological work) that could be drawn upon in making recommendations for interventions and future research. I have taken the liberty of including some references related to this, which I think the authors might find useful.

This comment was very helpful in enabling us to revise the text. Our use of language detracted from the phenomenological approach in places, particularly the themes, and we have revised the text to more fully convey the experiential nature of the data.

• Abstract

Themes don’t emerge – Braun & Clarke paper – this belittles the work you put in as a researcher making sense of the data.

[Braun, V., Clarke, V. & Weate, P. (2016). Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise research. In B. Smith & A. C. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 191-205). London: Routledge. – accessible for download when googled]

Thank you for this observation. The text has been amended to convey a stronger sense of that a process of data analysis underpins this.

• Theme titles tend to work better if there is an experiential element to them, especially if the work is designed to be phenomenological. More on this below.

The themes have been revisited and we have revised how we have articulated them. The language has been amended in each theme to better convey the experiential element (including incorporating quotations from the data); we are grateful to both reviewers for pushing us to revisit this because this has enabled us to keep a strong focus on the lived experience.

• In myriad ways – rather than in a myriad of ways.

The text has been amended to reflect this change.

• Data Availability

Is it possible to make all data available without restriction? It’s important in work like this that the data are treated carefully to ensure there are no unexpected breaches of confidentiality, which can be particularly difficult to manage with data of this kind. [See – BPS statement: https://twitter.com/healthpsycleeds/status/1248333598840819712 available on twitter; Wiley has a useful page too: https://authorservices.wiley.com/open-research/open-data/index.html]

Having checked with both institutions, the data (anonymised with pseudonyms) can be made available without restriction alongside the NVivo data file.

• When you say “data” can be added, what are you referring to? Is this anonymised transcripts or something else? It is very important to be clear about what kind of data are shared, that appropriate permissions are in place, and that data are anonymised as far as is possible. Note: even full copies of anonymised transcripts can be a risk because anonymity can never be fully guaranteed.

Please see previous response. All transcripts have been anonymised and include no reference to the participants precise geographical location to help secure anonymity. The meta-data of the files have also been checked and anonymity is also preserved through this. This extends to the NVivo data file. Beyond the geographical location outlined in the article, there is no other reference that may risk participant anonymity.

• Introduction

Line 84 – this is of concern

Text amended.

Line 87 – not severity – delete the

Text amended.

Freezing of gait needs some explanation, even just that this is a common motor problem experienced by PWP in case there are readers without background knowledge of PD.

This is a good point and a lay definition has been added to the text.

• The link to the unexpected finding about not being able to provide care needs a little more explanation or introduction. It’s difficult to know why this is relevant here.

We agree when we read the text we could see that this looked a little incongruous and have amended the text. We hope the amendment makes more sense.

• Line 117 – I don’t think you need the word highlighted

Text amended.

• Materials and method

I’m not sure there is sufficient justification here for using phenomenology. What I mean by that is, why phenomenology over another qualitative approach? The rationale provided is a basic rationale for a qualitative, exploratory approach, but not specifically a phenomenological approach. I think a little more detail is required here to illustrate, perhaps to a reader new to phenomenology, why this approach is particularly useful here.

See comments above a fulsome justification has been added to the text.

• Line 142 – Parkinson’s UK’s ‘Research Support Network’ – insert apostrophe after UK OR write as Parkinson’s UK Research Support Network.

Text amended.

• What is meant by a de facto relationship with different sex partners? This requires definition.

See response to reviewer’s 1 comments where this has been addressed already.

• There is some repetition in this section which can be deleted.

We have edited the text to remove repetition.

• Was the Bevan interview scheduled referenced or was it used? Was it adapted or used in its original form? It’d be helpful to include the schedule that was used in a figure or table, citing Bevan.

Bevan has provided an approach to phenomenological interviewing; we did not use a schedule devised by him. We have made this clearer in the text and provided the interview schedule in supplemental materials.

• I would like to see more detail on what is involved in the bracketing process as outlined by Chan, Fung and Chien. Bracketing will be new to some readers, but even to those familiar with/expert in phenomenology, there are many ways of engaging in bracketing and so further detail here would increase transparency.

A definition of bracketing and a list of Chan, Fung and Chien’s strategies used in the study have been added to the text.

• As above, there are many phenomenological methods of analysis and while some readers may be familiar with Moustakas’ approach, I think it’s worth including some more detail about how this works in practice. What does it add, specifically, to the process or perhaps the underlying objective of the thematic analysis?

In revising the text we felt this had overly complicated what we did so have focussed solely on the thematic analysis that was conducted.

• A definition of trustworthiness would be helpful.

This has been added.

• Also, it would be helpful to describe what a theme is – perhaps with the help of Braun & Clarke’s work or that of Moustakas so the reader can then see how a discussion of a theme would be helpful in creating a set of themes that adequately & appropriately represent participants’ lived experience.

A more detailed account of the data analysis has been added including a definition of a theme.

• Some of the above is explained by way of describing the consultation with participants, but it’d help to elaborate on the process within supervision too.

A more detailed account of the peer review process in supervision has been added.

• Results and discussion

I’m not sure the theme titles denote phenomenological themes. I would expect to see something of the quality of the experience within the theme title, as a heuristic would – something which points toward the meaning of the experience as lived rather than use of a simple descriptor.

See response to previous comment (above) where we addressed this issue.

• I think the ‘in vivo’ extracts you use in the text offer that experiential quality a phenomenological analysis should have. I would therefore include these quotations as part of the theme titles, both here and in the abstract.

See response to previous comment (above) where we addressed this issue.

• Table: I don’t think you need to include the note about the sub-categories which didn’t make the cut. That will then make it much clearer that these sub-categories were clustered to create the themes presented.

We agree that this is a better strategy and have removed the text.

• Line 216 – UK spelling: behaviour

Text amended.

• Line 217 – different perspectives – not differences

Text amended.

• Please attribute quotations to a participant code/pseudonym. That we know if they’re male or female & can see how many contributed to each theme in different ways, thus building up a picture of each individual as we move through the results.

This has been done using pseudonyms throughout; we have also added a note to the text explicitly stating that the names are pseudonyms.

• Line 264 – no need for possessive apostrophe – participants – just plural

Text amended.

• I wonder if it’s also worth mentioning a sense of belonging or perhaps a sense of not being alone – as well as the upward/downward social comparisons. These are ‘valid’ interpretations, but don’t really speak to the phenomenological approach being taken. I think reference to some phenomenological constructs here (& elsewhere) would be helpful (e.g. Heidegger’s notion of being-with).

We were not completely clear about what the expectations were here. The participants did not convey a sense of not being alone. Is it being suggested we should refer to literature related to this?

• Line 439 – important – not importance

Text amended.

• In discussing the sense of identity and changes in roles (from partner to carer, carer to Carer) I think there’s a missed opportunity to bring in the phenomenological elements of the lifeworld (here & elsewhere, but here, specifcially), e.g. sociability, sometimes referred to as intersubjectivity. As suggested above, I think the analysis works well & I like the reference to existing literature & theoretical explanations, but I think there’s a need to consult a more phenomenological literature in doing this for it to be more coherent with the methodological approach taken.

Again we are not completely sure what is being driven at here. We would welcome further clarity.

• Line 521 – no apostrophe, participants is just plural, not possessive

Text amended.

• I think in the final theme of perceptions it’s worth thinking about the role of meaning and meaninglessness in experiences of anxiety with PD. Meaninglessness can lead to a feeling of powerlessness; it might be that meaninglessness or uncertainty which comes with Parkinson’s which contributes to anxiety. Also, this would offer another opportunity to bring in a more phenomenological reading of the participants’ accounts.

Thank you for this insight- extra details have been added.

• Also, when discussion psychosocial interventions, there’s a missed opportunity here to talk of the need for a person-centred approach, or indeed a lifeworld-led approach (see Galvin & Todres’ work) when developing interventions to help reduce anxiety among PWP.

We have introduced this at various points in the paper and firmly linked it to the proposed model. This was a helpful addition that has helped us draw out something that was implicit in our previous draft.

• This counters your later discussion of the focus in much research on PD that is neurology, neurological treatment, and essentially, a cure. This doesn’t help those living with PD now and it doesn’t help them come to terms with their own experience of it.

We have amended this text to improve clarity and hope that it now makes more sense.

• I think your model demonstrates this need for a multifaceted approach to PD very well. I really like it! I wonder if you could refer to that a little earlier in the discussion of your findings so that we build a picture of it as we read – rather than leading to it as a crescendo at the end. (I think some signposting to the model is necessary throughout the discussion because of the way you’ve structured it as results and discussion together.) Also, this multifaceted notion of living well with Parkinson’s and anxiety speaks to the need to focus on the lifeworld – all the elements in a person’s experience, not simply their neurobiology. I think this case could be made more strongly by the introduction of some phenomenological theory and by emphasising the need for a phenomenological approach to fully understand the lived experience of PWP and thus to develop interventions that will boost their quality of life.

We have expanded on the proposed model so hopefully how it is presented now draws together the strands of the paper (and also meets with reviewer 1’s comments about the presentation of the findings).

• Some papers you may wish to read to help with integrating the phenomenological constructs throughout are below:

Baars, J., & Phillipson, C. (2013). Connecting meaning with social structure: theoretical foundations. In J. Baarsm, J. Dohmen, A. Grenier & C. Phillipson (Eds.), Ageing, meaning and social structure: connecting critical and humanistic gerontology (pp. 11_30). Bristol: Polity Press.

Galvin, K., & Todres, L. (2011). Kinds of well-being: A conceptual framework that provides direction for caring. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health & Wellbeing, 6, 10362. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhwv6i4.10362 Galvin, K., & Todres, L. (2013). Caring and well-being: A lifeworld approach. London: Routledge.

Aston, L., Shaw, R.L., & Knibb, R.C. (2019). Preliminary development of proxy-rated quality-of-life scales for children and adults with Niemann-Pick type C. Quality of Life Research, 28(11), 3083-3092.

Smith, L.J. & Shaw, R.L. (2016). Learning to live with Parkinson’s disease in the family unit: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of well-being. Medicine, Health Care & Philosophy. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-016-9716-3.

Thank you for being so supportive.

• COREC is of course are the standards used in medical and health research to appraise the quality of qualitative research. They are useful, but don’t always fit every approach to qualitative research, and I’m not sure they’re that useful for assessing phenomenological work. You may instead wish to cite the American Psychological Associations’ Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Research: https://apastyle.apa.org/jars/qualitative

We have amended the text accordingly.

Journal requirements: Additional requirements

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

The manuscript has been amended to meet the style requirements. The supplementary information file has been renamed accordingly. It is unclear how we need to name the main manuscript file as we have been unable to find this information on the PLOS One website. We have named in after the manuscript number. Please let us know if this is adequate or how the file needs to be named.

2. Please include additional information regarding the interview used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the study. For instance, if you developed an interview guide as part of this study and it is not under a copyright license more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

We have included the interview schedule as part of the supporting information

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. Data can now be made fully available. The cover letter has now been changed to reflect this.

4. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

The ethics statement is in the methods section of our manuscript. We have embedded so that it is in the heart of this section rather than at the end.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-03238 Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Rosemary Frey

22 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-03238R1

What is the lived experience of anxiety for people with Parkinson’s? A phenomenological study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lovegrove,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please correct the typos noted by Reviewer 2.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by 22 October 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rosemary Frey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for your feedback and the changes made to the paper in response. Upon re-reading it, I can see the strength of your approach, especially with the changes made in the discussion around the proposed model of experience of PWP & anxiety. It is an interesting topic.

On the lines 120-121 (which I can not identify because I can no longer access the earlier draft) - but I think it will be this run-on sentence, which still exists in the text. Needs a semi-colon or a coordinating conjunction or a full stop after "day".

Although PWPs can be treated with dopamine-replacement medication they often experience a

marked increase in symptoms as the medication wears off throughout the day [16],

primary], primary (or type-1) worry can in turn rapidly progress to type-2 worry (metaworry,

or ‘worry about worry’).

Reviewer #2: I know there were a few comments for which authors requested further clarity, however, I think the changes made are appropriate and in my view no further major changes are required.

I just noticed a few typos in the additional text

- page 30: end of paragraph 1: participant and [MISSING WORD] wellbeing

- page 30: second paragraph: understood in A [add] deterministic

- page 30: second paragraph: The components of THE [add] model

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 8;16(4):e0249390. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249390.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


26 Sep 2020

Dear Rosemary Frey,

Response to Reviewers: What is the lived experience of anxiety for people with Parkinson’s? A phenomenological study (PONE-D-20-03238)

Thank you for your response to our article, following the peer review process. We appreciate the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript. We have submitted the revised manuscripts as requested.

We would like to thank the reviewers for the time that they have taken to review our article. The feedback received has been positive in helping us to improve our article, for which we are grateful.

Yours sincerely,

The authors

Decision Letter 2

Rosemary Frey

17 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-03238R2

What is the lived experience of anxiety for people with Parkinson’s? A phenomenological study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lovegrove,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please address the methodological issues raised by Reviewer 3.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by 17 December 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rosemary Frey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I think the authors have dealt well with the comments from both reviewers. I don’t think there is any need to make further changes on the issues they requested clarity on. The amendments have improved the paper and improved the transparency of the phenomenological method.

Reviewer #3: I believe this study is indeed an important contribution to the phenomenological understanding of Parkinson’s disease. I find its ability to connect what can sometimes be an abstract field of study to clinical intervention as an important example for future work. However, I do believe that the study would benefit from further refinement – particularly as it concerns some of the study’s philosophical and technical positions. Please see the comments below for my suggestions to the authors:

1) My main concern is with the study’s description of its methodology. I am unsure if the reader can understand it as a cohesive whole and if it is conveyed in a way that would allow future researchers to replicate the study’s methodology. Below are several points regarding this matter:

a. The study cites several sources from which it derives aspects of its methodology. However, the borrowed components are left vague. Assuming that you are using a somewhat novel approach (i.e., not “one” comprehensive model like the “Phenomenological Psychological Method [Giorgi, & Giorgi, 2003], the Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis [Smith, & Shinebourne, 2012], etc.), the reader requires further explanation regarding rational and execution of these different aspects. This can be done similarly to how the author explained how the thematic analysis was conducted. The following questions should be taken into consideration – for most a sentence or two should suffice:

i. How does one “bracket” according to Chan et al? (pg. 6) You name some of the steps in the process, but the reader is not sure how you implemented them or what they necessarily mean.

ii. How did you use Bevan to create the interview? Or what suggestions did you follow? (pg. 8)

iii. What is the “immersion phase” and where does it come from? (pg. 9)

iv. You mention using NVivo v10 – what does the software do? Some readers will be unfamiliar with this. (pg. 9)

v. Where does the term “Trustworthiness” come from? (pg. 9) Is this a technical term or did you coin it? This seems similar to the hermeneutic circle (See comments below re: hermeneutics).

vi. Lastly, perhaps it is worth the authors mentioning how the above techniques fit together under a descriptive phenomenological framework. Or perhaps brief elaborations on the above-mentioned points will make this self-evident.

2) Another concern is some ambiguity or confusion on study’s position as representing “descriptive phenomenology.” The study seems to claim to be descriptive (i.e. presenting a phenomenon without using foreknowledge or interpretation) while also offering some of the author’s interpretations and contextualization, which is more akin to a hermeneutic or interpretive stance. The following are several points that warrant attention:

a. If this study is to be considered a “descriptive phenomenology” the authors should seriously consider separating out the descriptions of the themes they found from any interpretations of such themes. Some instances include:

i. The use of psychological concepts of “upward and downward comparison” to explicate coping mechanisms. (pg. 12)

ii. Offering explanation of adverse social experiences via cognitive psychology (i.e. “slowed cognitive processing”). (pg. 17) This might be remedied by tying this theme to your findings that subject report “inability to think,” as opposed to the author’s cognitive explanation.

iii. Interpreting the theme of “Ability to think” through a cognitive explanation (i.e. overload of working memory). (pg. 18)

iv. Interpreting emotion experience through physiological framework (i.e., dopaminergic pathways). (pg. 19)

v. Introducing powerlessness/meaninglessness to extrapolate when discussing subjects’ experience of loss of control. (pg. 26) This does not seem to come directly from subject reports.

vi. Using pathophysiology to explain omnipresent anxiety. (pg. 29)

b. One possible solution to the issue above is for the authors to separate out the interpretations of subjects’ accounts from the accounts themselves – possibly by differentiating “Results” section (i.e. descriptions of subject reports) from a “Discussion” section (i.e. elaborations, interpretations, and comparison of subject accounts to other fields of study or established work). I see that another reviewer suggested a similar edit, but I hope these points illuminate some of the theoretical reasons why one might consider doing so. To clarify, I believe these interpretations and comparisons are useful and have good insight, but to be truly “descriptive” one should rely more purely on subject reports.

c. In addition, it should be pointed out that the term “lifeworld,” which the study uses, is a term borrowed from hermeneutic, or interpretive phenomenology. The term is an effort by Heidegger to emphasize the need to contextualize a person’s experience, which is opposed to the aspirations of Husserl’s bracketing. This is not to say that the authors should do away with this word, as it has been widely adopted throughout phenomenological research, but rather it brings attention to some ambiguity in the study’s philosophical underpinnings.

d. For further overview on the difference between descriptive and interpretive phenomenology, I suggest looking at Lopez & Willis’ “Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their contributions to nursing knowledge” (2004).

3) The study overall would also benefit from further copy editing and general tightening up some of the prose throughout the paper. Two examples below:

a. Is the following a statement or a question? --- “Therefore, perhaps a shift in perspective is required so that healthcare professionals and researchers are more aware of the priorities of PWPs?” (pg. 23)

b. This sentence could benefit from a comma after “insights” and perhaps hyphenating “anxiety-specific” --- “Whilst these studies provide insights generally there is a lack of anxiety specific research in Parkinson’s.” (pg. 5)

Overall, I think this is a valuable piece of work. I hope you will consider the above revisions. There is indeed no one way to conduct phenomenology, but I believe taking these points into consideration will improve the study’s philosophical and methodological groundings.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 8;16(4):e0249390. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249390.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


9 Feb 2021

Dear Rosemary Frey,

PONE-D-20-03238R2

What is the lived experience of anxiety for people with Parkinson’s? A phenomenological study

PLOS ONE

Please find attached our revised manuscript as a separate file labelled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. We are grateful to the reviewers for their comments, particularly their positive encouragement to revise the draft, and have summarised our responses in the table below.

Reviewers' comments Responses to Reviewers

Reviewer #2: I think the authors have dealt well with the comments from both reviewers. I don’t think there is any need to make further changes on the issues they requested clarity on. The amendments have improved the paper and improved the transparency of the phenomenological method.

Thank you for the feedback. It is gratifying to know we have addressed your comments.

Reviewer #3: I believe this study is indeed an important contribution to the phenomenological understanding of Parkinson’s disease. I find its ability to connect what can sometimes be an abstract field of study to clinical intervention as an important example for future work.

Thank you for this feedback which was helpful in preparing the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3: I do believe that the study would benefit from further refinement – particularly as it concerns some of the study’s philosophical and technical positions.

My main concern is with the study’s description of its methodology. I am unsure if the reader can understand it as a cohesive whole and if it is conveyed in a way that would allow future researchers to replicate the study’s methodology. We have tried to address each of the comments identified and hope that in doing so we have made the methodology more cohesive and promoted the replicability of the study.

Reviewer #3: a. The study cites several sources from which it derives aspects of its methodology. However, the borrowed components are left vague. Assuming that you are using a somewhat novel approach (i.e., not “one” comprehensive model like the “Phenomenological Psychological Method [Giorgi, & Giorgi, 2003], the Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis [Smith, & Shinebourne, 2012], etc.), the reader requires further explanation regarding rational and execution of these different aspects. This can be done similarly to how the author explained how the thematic analysis was conducted.

You are right we did not use one definitive approach to phenomenology and drew on a number of sources to inform our methodology. We hope the amendments we have made to different aspects highlighted means the text is more cohesive. We appreciate your openness to how we have approached phenomenology.

Reviewer #3: The following questions should be taken into consideration – for most a sentence or two should suffice:

i. How does one “bracket” according to Chan et al? (pg. 6) You name some of the steps in the process, but the reader is not sure how you implemented them or what they necessarily mean.

We have annotated the text with explanations of Chan et al’s approach and explicitly stated that these steps were used in the study.

Reviewer #3: ii. How did you use Bevan to create the interview? Or what suggestions did you follow? (pg. 8)

We have amended the text to explain that we adapted the wording with an example to bring this alive for the reader.

Reviewer #3: iii. What is the “immersion phase” and where does it come from? (pg. 9)

We have added in a succinct definition with a reference to the literature so it evident to the reader where the concept comes from.

Reviewer #3: iv. You mention using NVivo v10 – what does the software do? Some readers will be unfamiliar with this. (pg. 9)

We have added in a definition for anyone unfamiliar with this software.

Reviewer #3: v. Where does the term “Trustworthiness” come from? (pg. 9) Is this a technical term or did you coin it? This seems similar to the hermeneutic circle (See comments below re: hermeneutics).

We have defined this and added in a reference.

Reviewer #3: vi. Lastly, perhaps it is worth the authors mentioning how the above techniques fit together under a descriptive phenomenological framework. Or perhaps brief elaborations on the above-mentioned points will make this self-evident.

We hope the way we have elaborated on the text has made this self-evident.

Reviewer #3: 2) Another concern is some ambiguity or confusion on study’s position as representing “descriptive phenomenology.” The study seems to claim to be descriptive (i.e. presenting a phenomenon without using foreknowledge or interpretation) while also offering some of the author’s interpretations and contextualization, which is more akin to a hermeneutic or interpretive stance.

As with point one, we hope the amendments we have made to different aspects highlighted mean it is much clearer that this is a descriptive phenomenology.

Reviewer #3: The following are several points that warrant attention:

a. If this study is to be considered a “descriptive phenomenology” the authors should seriously consider separating out the descriptions of the themes they found from any interpretations of such themes.

This has been done.

Reviewer #3: Some instances include:

i. The use of psychological concepts of “upward and downward comparison” to explicate coping mechanisms. (pg. 12)

As well as separating the findings and discussion, the text is amended to show what was described by the participants and how it relates to the existing literature.

Reviewer #3: ii. Offering explanation of adverse social experiences via cognitive psychology (i.e. “slowed cognitive processing”). (pg. 17) This might be remedied by tying this theme to your findings that subject report “inability to think,” as opposed to the author’s cognitive explanation.

Reviewer #3: iii. Interpreting the theme of “Ability to think” through a cognitive explanation (i.e. overload of working memory). (pg. 18)

The text has been reordered to resolve this confusion (see p26 in revised manuscript).

Reviewer #3: iv. Interpreting emotion experience through physiological framework (i.e., dopaminergic pathways). (pg. 19)

The text has been reordered to resolve this confusion (see p26 in revised manuscript).

Reviewer #3: v. Introducing powerlessness/meaninglessness to extrapolate when discussing subjects’ experience of loss of control. (pg. 26) This does not seem to come directly from subject reports.

We have moved this point to the discussion section and reworded to add clarity.

Reviewer #3: vi. Using pathophysiology to explain omnipresent anxiety. (pg. 29)

We have linked this back to our introductory literature review in a way that we hope adds clarity.

Reviewer #3: b. One possible solution to the issue above is for the authors to separate out the interpretations of subjects’ accounts from the accounts themselves – possibly by differentiating “Results” section (i.e. descriptions of subject reports) from a “Discussion” section (i.e. elaborations, interpretations, and comparison of subject accounts to other fields of study or established work). I see that another reviewer suggested a similar edit, but I hope these points illuminate some of the theoretical reasons why one might consider doing so. To clarify, I believe these interpretations and comparisons are useful and have good insight, but to be truly “descriptive” one should rely more purely on subject reports.

We have done this. We did not fully understand the import of what the previous reviewer was suggesting. Thanks you for the additional clarification here.

Reviewer #3: c. In addition, it should be pointed out that the term “lifeworld,” which the study uses, is a term borrowed from hermeneutic, or interpretive phenomenology. The term is an effort by Heidegger to emphasize the need to contextualize a person’s experience, which is opposed to the aspirations of Husserl’s bracketing. This is not to say that the authors should do away with this word, as it has been widely adopted throughout phenomenological research, but rather it brings attention to some ambiguity in the study’s philosophical underpinnings.

We appreciate your observation and acknowledge the ambiguity that could arise but have kept the concept in. This is because it was a recommendation in a previous review and we believe it does enhance the understanding of the lived experiences of the participants in this study.

Reviewer #3: d. For further overview on the difference between descriptive and interpretive phenomenology, I suggest looking at Lopez & Willis’ “Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their contributions to nursing knowledge” (2004).

Thank you for this suggestion and we have incorporated this reference into the text.

Reviewer #3: 3) The study overall would also benefit from further copy editing and general tightening up some of the prose throughout the paper. Two examples below:

We have tried to copy edit and tighten up the prose.

Reviewer #3: a. Is the following a statement or a question? --- “Therefore, perhaps a shift in perspective is required so that healthcare professionals and researchers are more aware of the priorities of PWPs?” (pg. 23)

We have edited the text so it now reads –

“Therefore, a shift in perspective may be required so that healthcare professionals and researchers are more aware of the priorities of PWPs.”

Reviewer #3: b. This sentence could benefit from a comma after “insights” and perhaps hyphenating “anxiety-specific” --- “Whilst these studies provide insights generally there is a lack of anxiety specific research in Parkinson’s.” (pg. 5)

We agree that this improves the sense of the sentence and have made the edits suggested.

Reviewer #3: Overall, I think this is a valuable piece of work. I hope you will consider the above revisions. There is indeed no one way to conduct phenomenology, but I believe taking these points into consideration will improve the study’s philosophical and methodological groundings.

Thank you for being so encouraging. We hope the resultant edits have improved the study’s philosophical and methodological groundings.

We hope we have addressed the comments sufficiently in the revised manuscript to merit publication and we look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Kind regards,

Chris Lovegrove

Katrina Bannigan

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Rosemary Frey

18 Mar 2021

What is the lived experience of anxiety for people with Parkinson’s? A phenomenological study

PONE-D-20-03238R3

Dear Mr. Lovegrove,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rosemary Frey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I am very happy with the revisions made. It is clear that you have responded to all the suggestions made. I am impressed with the paper and will look forward to seeing it published.

Reviewer #3: I believe the authors have sufficiently amended the text and incorporated reviewer recommendations. I do not think any further changes are needed. The revision submitted results in a paper with improved philosophical and methodological groundings. I believe the manuscript at hand is an important contribution to the phenomenological understanding of Parkinson's Disease and serves a sound example of employing phenomenological thought to arrive at clinical interventions.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Rosemary Frey

30 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-03238R3

What is the lived experience of anxiety for people with Parkinson’s? A phenomenological study

Dear Dr. Lovegrove:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Rosemary Frey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    S2 File

    (DOCX)

    S3 File

    (DOCX)

    S4 File

    (DOCX)

    S5 File

    (DOCX)

    S6 File

    (DOCX)

    S7 File

    (DOCX)

    S8 File

    (DS_STORE)

    S1 Data

    (NVPX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-03238 Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES