Analysis of tapping test results in a test battery for advanced PD patients

Objective: To compare results from various tapping tests with diary responses in advanced PD. Background: A home environment test battery for assessing patient state in advanced PD, consisting of diary assessments and motor tests was constructed for a hand computer with touch screen and mobile communication. The diary questions: 1. walking, 2. time in off , on and dyskinetic states, 3. off at worst, 4. dyskinetic at worst, 5. cramps, and 6. satisfied with function, relate to the recent past. Question 7, self-assessment, allows seven steps from -3 ( very off ) to +3 ( very dyskinetic ) and relate to right now. Tapping tests outline: 8. Alternately tapping two fields (un-cued) with right hand 9. Same as 8 but using left hand 10. Tapping an active field (out of two) following a system-generated rhythm (increasing speed) with the dominant hand 11. Tapping an active field (out of four) that randomly changes location when tapped using the dominant hand Methods: 65 patients (currently on Duodopa, or candidates for this treatment) entered diary responses and performed tapping tests four times per day during one to six periods of seven days length. In total there were 224 test periods and 6039 test occasions. Speed for tapping test 10 was discardedand tests 8 and 9 were combined by taking means. Descriptive statistics were used to present the variation of the test variables in relation to self assessment (question 7). Pearson correlation coefficients between speed and accuracy (percent correct) in tapping tests and diary responses were calculated. Results: Mean compliance (percentage completed test occasions per test period) was 83% and the median was 93%. There were large differences in both mean tapping speed and accuracy between the different self-assessed states. Correlations between diary responses and tapping results were small (-0.2 to 0.3, negative values for off-time and dyskinetic-time that had opposite scale directions). Correlations between tapping results were all positive (0.1 to 0.6). Conclusions: The diary responses and tapping results provided different information. The low correlations can partly be explained by the fact that questions related to the past and by random variability, which could be reduced by taking means over test periods. Both tapping speed and accuracy reflect the motor function of the patient to a large extent.

A web-based system for visualizing upper limb motor performance of Parkinson’s disease patients

Objective To design, develop and set up a web-based system for enabling graphical visualization of upper limb motor performance (ULMP) of Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients to clinicians. Background Sixty-five patients diagnosed with advanced PD have used a test battery, implemented in a touch-screen handheld computer, in their home environment settings over the course of a 3-year clinical study. The test items consisted of objective measures of ULMP through a set of upper limb motor tests (finger to tapping and spiral drawings). For the tapping tests, patients were asked to perform alternate tapping of two buttons as fast and accurate as possible, first using the right hand and then the left hand. The test duration was 20 seconds. For the spiral drawing test, patients traced a pre-drawn Archimedes spiral using the dominant hand, and the test was repeated 3 times per test occasion. In total, the study database consisted of symptom assessments during 10079 test occasions. Methods Visualization of ULMP The web-based system is used by two neurologists for assessing the performance of PD patients during motor tests collected over the course of the said study. The system employs animations, scatter plots and time series graphs to visualize the ULMP of patients to the neurologists. The performance during spiral tests is depicted by animating the three spiral drawings, allowing the neurologists to observe real-time accelerations or hesitations and sharp changes during the actual drawing process. The tapping performance is visualized by displaying different types of graphs. Information presented included distribution of taps over the two buttons, horizontal tap distance vs. time, vertical tap distance vs. time, and tapping reaction time over the test length. Assessments Different scales are utilized by the neurologists to assess the observed impairments. For the spiral drawing performance, the neurologists rated firstly the ‘impairment’ using a 0 (no impairment) – 10 (extremely severe) scale, secondly three kinematic properties: ‘drawing speed’, ‘irregularity’ and ‘hesitation’ using a 0 (normal) – 4 (extremely severe) scale, and thirdly the probable ‘cause’ for the said impairment using 3 choices including Tremor, Bradykinesia/Rigidity and Dyskinesia. For the tapping performance, a 0 (normal) – 4 (extremely severe) scale is used for first rating four tapping properties: ‘tapping speed’, ‘accuracy’, ‘fatigue’, ‘arrhythmia’, and then the ‘global tapping severity’ (GTS). To achieve a common basis for assessment, initially one neurologist (DN) performed preliminary ratings by browsing through the database to collect and rate at least 20 samples of each GTS level and at least 33 samples of each ‘cause’ category. These preliminary ratings were then observed by the two neurologists (DN and PG) to be used as templates for rating of tests afterwards. In another track, the system randomly selected one test occasion per patient and visualized its items, that is tapping and spiral drawings, to the two neurologists. Statistical methods Inter-rater agreements were assessed using weighted Kappa coefficient. The internal consistency of properties of tapping and spiral drawing tests were assessed using Cronbach’s α test. One-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey multiple comparisons test was used to test if mean scores of properties of tapping and spiral drawing tests were different among GTS and ‘cause’ categories, respectively. Results When rating tapping graphs, inter-rater agreements (Kappa) were as follows: GTS (0.61), ‘tapping speed’ (0.89), ‘accuracy’ (0.66), ‘fatigue’ (0.57) and ‘arrhythmia’ (0.33). The poor inter-rater agreement when assessing “arrhythmia” may be as a result of observation of different things in the graphs, among the two raters. When rating animated spirals, both raters had very good agreement when assessing severity of spiral drawings, that is, ‘impairment’ (0.85) and irregularity (0.72). However, there were poor agreements between the two raters when assessing ‘cause’ (0.38) and time-information properties like ‘drawing speed’ (0.25) and ‘hesitation’ (0.21). Tapping properties, that is ‘tapping speed’, ‘accuracy’, ‘fatigue’ and ‘arrhythmia’ had satisfactory internal consistency with a Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.77. In general, the trends of mean scores of tapping properties worsened with increasing levels of GTS. The mean scores of the four properties were significantly different to each other, only at different levels. In contrast from tapping properties, kinematic properties of spirals, that is ‘drawing speed’, ‘irregularity’ and ‘hesitation’ had a questionable consistency among them with a coefficient of 0.66. Bradykinetic spirals were associated with more impaired speed (mean = 83.7 % worse, P < 0.001) and hesitation (mean = 77.8% worse, P < 0.001), compared to dyskinetic spirals. Both these ‘cause’ categories had similar mean scores of ‘impairment’ and ‘irregularity’. Conclusions In contrast from current approaches used in clinical setting for the assessment of PD symptoms, this system enables clinicians to animate easily and realistically the ULMP of patients who at the same time are at their homes. Dynamic access of visualized motor tests may also be useful when observing and evaluating therapy-related complications such as under- and over-medications. In future, we foresee to utilize these manual ratings for developing and validating computer methods for automating the process of assessing ULMP of PD patients.

'They would never receive you without a husband' : Paradoxical barriers to antenatal care scale-up in Rwanda

OBJECTIVE: to explore perspectives and experiences of antenatal care and partner involvement among women who nearly died during pregnancy ('near-miss'). DESIGN: a study guided by naturalistic inquiry was conducted, and included extended in-community participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions. Qualitative data were collected between March 2013 and April 2014 in Kigali, Rwanda. FINDINGS: all informants were aware of the recommendations of male involvement for HIV-testing at the first antenatal care visit. However, this recommendation was seen as a clear link in the chain of delays and led to severe consequences, especially for women without engaged partners. The overall quality of antenatal services was experienced as suboptimal, potentially missing the opportunity to provide preventive measures and essential health education intended for both parents. This seemed to contribute to women's disincentive to complete all four recommended visits and men's interest in attending to ensure their partners' reception of care. However, the participants experienced a restriction of men's access during subsequent antenatal visits, which made men feel denied to their increased involvement during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: 'near-miss' women and their partners face paradoxical barriers to actualise the recommended antenatal care visits. The well-intended initiative of male partner involvement counterproductively causes delays or excludes women whereas supportive men are turned away from further health consultations. Currently, the suboptimal quality of antenatal care misses the opportunity to provide health education for the expectant couple or to identify and address early signs of complications IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: these findings suggest a need for increased flexibility in the antenatal care recommendations to encourage women to attend care with or without their partner, and to create open health communication about women's and men's real needs within the context of their social situations. Supportive partners should not be denied involvement at any stage of pregnancy, but should be received only upon consent of the expectant mother.