Patients’ Perspective of Comprehensive Parkinson Care in Rural Victoria

Table 3

Quality improvement scores for top priority items.

Items	Subscale	QIS East gippsland group, mean (SD)	QIS Rural group, mean (SD)	value, 95% CI
Informed about what health professionals discussed with each other	Provision of tailored information	4.7	5.2	0.40
		(3.0)	(3.1)	−1.85, 0.74
Knowledge about advanced PD treatment options	Provision of tailored information	4.6	4.1	0.47^a
		(2.4)	(3.3)	−0.94, 1.86
Knowledge about alternative health therapies	Provision of tailored information	4.5	4.4	0.90
		(2.9)	(3.0)	−1.22, 1.38
Know about treatment options for PD provided by different clinicians	Provision of tailored information	3.9	4.5	0.27
		(2.5)	(2.5)	−1.57, 0.44
Contacted by health professional after starting new PD medication regimen	Provision of tailored information	3.7	4.5	0.28
		(3.5)	(3.1)	−2.30, 0.65
Support from health professionals to cope with consequences of PD	Emotional support	2.6	4.3	0.02^a
		(1.9)	(3.1)	−2.00, −0.34
Have one person assigned to you whom you can contact	Continuity and collaboration of professionals	2.2	4.2	0.01
		(3.5)	(3.5)	−3.55, −0.46
Have one health professional with whom to make most important decision regarding PD	Continuity and collaboration of professionals	1.5	4.1	0.001^a
		(3.2)	(3.8)	−4.09, −1.02

QIS = quality improvement scores (range 0–9), higher scores indicate higher priority for improvement; CI–confidence intervals; a = Equal variances not assumed.