4.5 Review

Working capacity of patients with Parkinson's disease - A systematic review

Journal

PARKINSONISM & RELATED DISORDERS
Volume 27, Issue -, Pages 9-24

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2016.03.017

Keywords

Parkinson's disease; Work capacity; Motor symptoms; Non-motor symptoms; Cognition

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Parkinson's disease (PD) is characterized by motor and non-motor symptoms and has a median age-of-onset around 55 years. Many PD patients are thus diagnosed before reaching retirement age and it is likely that they are confronted with a reduced working capacity or loss of employment. This systematic literature review gives an overview of the research conducted on work capacity in PD. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PsycINFO and PubMed (Keywords: Parkinson or Parkinson's disease combined with employment, work, working, retire or retirement). Results: Thirteen studies were identified and showed that PD patients retired 4-7 years earlier than the general population. Furthermore, 23%-75% of patients report that they retired early because of PD and slowness and fatigue were reported as the most debilitating symptoms in relation to working capacity. Early retirement of PD patients is associated with high societal costs and a high loss of individual lifetime earnings. Although many employed PD patients asked for adjustments at their workplace, their employers did not always support these. Conclusions: PD has a detrimental effect on working capacity and is associated with high costs. Employed PD patients do not, however, always receive the support they need. It is therefore very relevant that employers and patients are informed about strategies and techniques developed for counteracting symptoms of PD which might support patients to stay in the workforce for a longer period of time. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available