Tag: experiential expertise

  • Managing medication in PD – both complex and simple?

    Managing medication in PD – both complex and simple?

    Medication management is probably the absolutely most important part of my Parkinson’s disease (PD) selfcare since without my pills, my body would not function. During the day I take meds approximately every three hours to be able to move around, take care of myself and be able to work. When I wake up in the morning, I have not taken any meds for at least 7 hours and my movements are REALLY slow and stiff.

    My approach to PD is that I try to take my meds at the same times every day. I know that other persons with Parkinson’s (PwP) have other approaches and no-one really knows which approach is best, since there has been no research conducted (or at least not published) comparing different approaches (which is actually one of my main reasons for writing this post).

    When I occasionally make changes to my medication regime, I note down dates of the change and what I changed (for example types of meds added/taken away, changes in timings for intakes, and/or changes in combinations of meds for each intake). For example, a few months ago I noticed that I tended to get slightly dyskinetic (a side effect of PD meds, see here) around lunch so I decided to push my second dose of meds 30 minutes and started taking it at 10:00 am instead of 9:30 am. This changed resolved my dyskinesia. These notes are for myself, none of my neurologists have ever asked about changes I have made between visits, they have only shown an interest in my current regimen at the time of the visit. I can completely understand this, they have enough work to do as it is and don’t need more tasks to complete. Of course there is plenty that could be learned from systematically recording individual medication regimes for a large number of persons with Parkinson’s (PwP) including following up the effects of that regimen on an individual level but I have long since accepted that that is probably not the best use of healthcare resources.

    In my role as an academic researcher, I have applied for funding many times over the past decade to address different aspects of how to optimise PD meds on an individual level. Unfortunately my funding applications have not really succeeded despite the fact that this area is extremely under-researched. I think there are several reasons for this apparent disinterest in the field of medication optimisation in PD and I will mention the three at the top of my mind:

    1. Complexity

    PD is SUPER COMPLEX! We have heard this so many times but what does it actually mean? The complexity of PD is multi-layered and there is so much we currently don’t know. We don’t know how and why the condition starts on an individual level, we are not sure about what processes makes the condition progress, and we don’t know why some medications work well for some but do not work as well for others.

    On the level of individual neurologists, I think that many of the clinicians who have made it their profession to help us actually think that medication intakes are already optimized based on available guidelines and their clinical experience. Those guidelines are however based on group-level data, and do not often translate well to individual patients. There is a huge gap between what is measured in research trials (which subsequently forms the basis of guidelines) and what PwP experience in their daily lives.

    One aspect that is often overlooked is that taking medication is not as simple as just swallowing a pill at the right time. It requires remembering (which, ironically, can be difficult when you have a neurodegenerative disease), carrying medication with you at all times, for some PwP also planning around meals, and adjusting for unpredictable factors such as stress, sleep quality, and physical activity. Even something as basic as getting water to take a pill can be a challenge in certain situations. The effort required to consistently take PD medication is far greater than many neurologists or researchers realize.

    Another factor adding to the complexity is that we living with PD are not really interested in taking the pills, we actually have zero interest in the actual pill taking itself. The reason we take them is to get the effect the pills (hopefully) have on reducing our symptoms. But what does healthcare use to evaluate this process? They use medication adherence, meaning if we take our pills in the way our neurologists have prescribed. As far as I know, there are no standardized adherence scales available that take into account the complexity of finding your individual best timings for intakes of meds to achieve the optimal effect.

    And since this complexity doesn’t directly influence the work of neurologists and researchers, it’s not strange that they don’t see the need for research into how to best optimize PD meds.

    2. Money

    The reality is that the use (and non-use) of pharmaceuticals is (almost) entirely driven by money. And currently there is no money to be gained on a corporate level from helping the approximately 10 million PwP in the world getting a better effect from the many pills we take.

    The pharmaceutical industry mostly hinges on developing new drugs, not on optimizing the use of existing ones. This means that the funding available for research favor the discovery of new molecules over the fine-tuning of treatment regimens for individual patients.

    3. Simplicity

    As a person who has spent more time thinking about this A LOT over the past 10 – 15 years, probably more than is healthy…, I have come to the conclusion that the main problem with the issue of medication optimization in PD actually is simplicity. More precisely, the illusion of simplicity. Medication adherence and effectiveness in PD are mostly treated as simple, binary issues: “Did you take your medication? Yes or no?” But in reality, it’s much more complex. Timing, food intake, stress levels, sleep quality, and countless other factors can influence how well our meds works.

    Yet, our healthcare system is not set up to systematically track and adjust for these variables. Instead, PwP are mostly left to figure it out themselves, with trial and error as our primary tool.This means that many PwP, myself included, spend years fine-tuning our medication regimens without structured support. Some of us get lucky and find a pattern that works well; others struggle for years with inconsistent results.

    In conclusion

    For this area to develop, we need a better understanding of how PwP actually take their medication in daily life and not just how they are prescribed to take it. We need more research that focuses on the real-world challenges of medication adherence, from remembering doses to managing side effects and adjusting for the unpredictability of daily life with PD. We need a more nuanced discussion of what is working, what isn’t, and why. Until then, PwP will continue doing what we have always done: adapting, experimenting, and trying to make the best of an imperfect system.

    It’s ironic that while Parkinson’s medication is one of the most researched aspects of the disease, the actual experience of taking it—the daily struggles, the trial and error, the constant balancing act—is still largely unstudied. The truth is, many PwP are experts in managing their own meds out of necessity, yet our knowledge remains anecdotal and undervalued in clinical settings. If we truly want to improve Parkinson’s care, we need to start acknowledging the experiential expertise of us who live with it every single day.

    And no, there is nothing simple about managing PD meds – it’s complex all the way!

  • Understanding Parkinson’s: The curse of knowledge

    Understanding Parkinson’s: The curse of knowledge

    I just realised that I have probably been suffering from the “curse of knowledge” when trying to explain Parkinson’s (PD) to people. With this I mean that things that are obvious to me are probably not as obvious to others when it comes to understanding Parkinson’s. Let me demonstrate with a few examples:

    Biomarkers in Parkinson’s

    I often say that there are no biomarkers in PD but if you read the scientific literature there are many examples. What’s up with that? The problem is that none of them are fully deterministic. With that I mean that none of them are relevant for all people with PD. Many different attempts at biomarkers are used in projects on PD and one example REM-sleep behaviour disorder or RBD. This condition entails people not lying still while sleeping but rather can thrash about in bed and if someone is sleeping next to them the spouse or partner might even get hurt. This is considered one of the early markers of PD in the scientific community but I would say that its usefulness to patients is limited. This is because not all people with RBD will go on to be diagnosed with PD and conversely not all people with PD will ever experience RBD. There are also other suggested prodromal signs like depression, loss of sense of smell etc. They are all equally non-deterministic as RBD and without clear patterns in co-occurences between different individuals who go on to be diagnosed with PD (or not).

    Diagnosis of PD

    Also here there are important challenges. The condition is generally diagnosed based on observations of a few key symptoms:

    • Tremor. Not all PwP have this.
    • Slowness of movement (bradykinesia). I would say that all PwP have this symptom but there are MANY other conditions that also give this symptom
    • Stiffness (rigidity). Most PwP have this symptom in varying degrees but it can be difficult to distinguish from other conditions that result in stiffness.

    Comparison with type 1 diabetes

    Let me make a comparison with a different complex chronic condition: type 1 diabetes (T1d). There is a very distinctive and specific biomarker in blood glucose levels. All people with T1d need insulin to survive and they all use frequent blood sugar readings to regulate their treatment. 

    In short: both Parkinson’s and T1d are equal to being dealt a really shitty hand in the “poker game of life”. But while with T1d you get the two of clubs, seven of hearts, king of spades, ten of diamonds, and five of spades, with Parkinson’s your hand consists of an old bus ticket, a wrinkled up candy wrapper, your old business card from two re-organisations ago, a receipt from your latest visit to the pharmacy, and small piece of pocket lint…

  • This is why patient involvement is important for improving healthcare or “It seems inconvenient, but if you really want to, you can try”

    This is why patient involvement is important for improving healthcare or “It seems inconvenient, but if you really want to, you can try”

    (This blog post is also available in Swedish =>> here)

    Most people living with Parkinson’s disease take a lot of pills, multiple times a day. After having Parkinson’s for a while, it’s not uncommon to be prescribed 3-4 different types of medications to be taken in various combinations 4-6 times each day. One of my medications is an extended-release type, which means that the pill slowly dissolves in the body, and therefore, at least in theory, it’s sufficient to take it only once a day. When I started taking that medication, I did exactly that, took it once every day, in the morning. After the usual “adjustment problems” such as a bit of nausea and similar issues for a few weeks, I felt confident that the addition of this medication did indeed make it a bit easier for me to move around.

    After some time however, I noticed that the positive effect was noticeable in the morning but the pill didn’t give me as much of an effect later in the afternoon. During my next neurologist visit, I mentioned this to him. I knew that the same medication was available also in other dosage strengths so I asked him if maybe he could prescribe it to me in a lower strength so that I could spread out my intakes of the extended-release formulation over the day. In this way, I could take lower doses at several different times instead of taking only one higher dose tablet in the morning. He considered this for a few seconds and said: “According to the information from the pharmaceutical company, it really should be enough to take this medication only once a day, and it does seems inconvenient to take it at multiple times. But if you really want to, you can try.” I left the clinic with a new prescription and was curious to see how this new dosing would work out.

    Classification of patient knowledge by source of learning. (From: Dumez, V., & L’Espérance, A. (2024). Beyond experiential knowledge: A classification of patient knowledge. Social Theory & Health.)

    It should come as no surprise that I strongly believe that the improvement of healthcare should be done together with patients, and I recently came across a scientific article that made me see patient involvement in a completely new light: “Beyond experiential knowledge: a classification of patient knowledge” written by Vincent Dumez and Audrey L’Espérance. They identify six types of patient knowledge from three main sources of patient learning, see the Figure. You can read a separate post about that article here, and most important is that Dumez and L’Espérance made me aware of the concept of patients’ experiential knowledge. I also went through that article’s reference list (a good way to find other relevant scientific articles in a particular field) and found a very interesting article published back in 1976: “Experiential Knowledge: A New Concept for the Analysis of Self-Help Groups” written by Thomasina Borkman. There, experiential knowledge is described as “first-hand knowledge,” meaning knowledge obtained from personal experience with a phenomenon, as opposed to knowledge that comes from reasoning, observation, or reflection based on information provided by someone else. I have written a separate post also for this article (link here).

    So what? Why is this important?

    What does this mean then? In what way do these two scientific articles relate to patient involvement? This is my take: Through their education and professional work, healthcare professionals have acquired theoretical knowledge. They have also gained experiential knowledge through their professional practice. Of course, both of these aspects are very important when you want to improve and further develop healthcare. And if you live 24/7 with illness, disabilities, and the need for help and support from healthcare and society, AKA patients, you gain experiential knowledge. That kind of knowledge cannot be gained theoretically. You cannot get experiential knowledge from reading a textbook or a scientific article, it can only be acquired through living it.

    This means that without also having direct access to patients’ experiential knowledge, healthcare professionals do not have the full picture and therefore cannot solve the problem at hand: to optimize individual health, in the best way.

    Finally

    You might wonder what happened when I started taking the extended-release medication several times a day instead of just once every day. Well, as usual when making medication changes, there were some initial adjustment issues when I went from a higher dose once a day to several lower doses. After that, it became very clear to me that this way of using the medication gave me a noticeably more consistent effect. I shared this with my neurologist, and later I heard from other people with Parkinson’s who also go to him that he started prescribing this extended-release tablet in the same way to other patients as well.

    In conclusion: involving patients in improving and further developing healthcare is important because it ensures that healthcare is based on the actual priorities that patients have, rather than the priorities that healthcare professionals think that patients have.

  • Patients’ experiential knowledge and expertise

    Patients’ experiential knowledge and expertise

    I recently came across a very interesting scientific article, published almost 50 years ago, with concepts that are definitely still relevant and important today:

    Borkman, T. (1976). Experiential Knowledge:
    A New Concept for the Analysis of Self-Help Groups. 
    Social Service Review50(3), 445–456. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/643401

    (more…)