4.6 Article

Sedentary Behavior and Quality of Life in Individuals With Parkinson's Disease

Journal

NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR
Volume 33, Issue 8, Pages 595-601

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1545968319856893

Keywords

sedentary; Parkinson's disease; quality of life; function; physical activity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Sedentary behavior is a growing public health concern and may have particular relevance for the Parkinson disease (PD) population. However, the influence of sedentary time on factors associated with quality of life (QOL) in PD is unknown. The primary purpose of this study was to examine relationships between sedentary behaviors and markers of PD-specific QOL. A secondary purpose was to examine relationships between physical activity behaviors and QOL. Methods. We assessed sedentary and active behaviors using objective and interview measures and examined relationships between these behaviors and a measure of PD-specific QOL in individuals with PD. Results. Results demonstrated that sedentary time was significantly related to several aspects of QOL, including perceived deficits in the domains of mobility, cognitive processing, and communication. Additionally, results showed that time spent watching television was more strongly associated with lower levels of QOL than other more engaging sedentary activities. For physical activity, relationships between objective measures and QOL were weaker and only significantly associated with mobility. Time spent doing housework was associated with lower levels of QOL, whereas time spent in recreational activity was associated with lower levels of discomfort. Discussion. These results suggest that targeting decreases in sedentary behaviors (eg, reducing time spent watching television, breaking up prolonged bouts of sedentary time) may be effective for improving QOL in individuals with PD.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available