Summary of included studies
| Authors and year | Study design and sample size | Self-efficacy measure | Results as reported by the authors |
| Interventions which raised self-efficacy to a statistically significant level for the given measure | |||
| Chivers Seymour, K et al 201950 | RCT Sample size n=474 | Falls Self-efficacy Scale International (FES-I).55 | Between-group difference 1.60 points, 95% CI 3.00 to 0.19, p=0.026 for the intervention at 6 months. Themes: The study intervention predominantly focused MS symptoms (falls prevention). However, the impact of PD (MS and NMS) on fear of falling and falls self-efficacy were secondary outcomes. |
| Lai, B et al 202051 | Mixed methods pilot Sample size n=20 | Qualitative thematic analysis. | Perceived increased exercise motivation, and self-efficacy in the intervention group identified using qualitative thematic analysis. Themes: MS were objectively measured using different walking tests. NMS were explored using qualitative research methods and thematic analysis of data. |
| Park, Y et al 202254 | RCT Sample size n=20 | Self-efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease 6-item (SEMCD-6-item).60 | The intervention group improved self-efficacy to a statistically significant level when compared with the control group (t=2.33, p=0.025). Intervention pre-post score (t=2.85 p=0.011) compared with the control pre-post test score (t=0.26 p=0.796). Themes: This was a complex multimodal intervention which focused on the effects of self-efficacy and self-management using mobile phone technology. Outcomes focused on the impact of PD (MS and NMS) and their management. The impact of PD symptoms on the QoL was measured separately and was considered. |
| Quinn, L et al 202046 | Case report Sample size n=27 | Norman Self-efficacy Scale for Exercise.59 | Pre/post scores showed a statistically significant increase in self-efficacy (d=0.95, p<0.001). Theme: This was a physical activity telehealth intervention which predominantly focused on MS, including measuring self-efficacy using the Norman Self-efficacy Scale for Exercise. NMS where not explicitly mentioned. |
| Shih, S et al 202245 | A single cohort study with no control group or blinding of participants Sample size n=62 | Exercise Self-efficacy Scale (ESE).56 | ESE pre and post-intervention rose with a large effect size Cohens d 1.20. Participants with lower baseline ESE showed the greatest rise in self-efficacy. Theme: This was a physical activity telehealth intervention which predominantly focused on MS, including measuring self-efficacy using the Exercise Self-efficacy Scale for exercise. NMS were not explicitly mentioned. |
| Interventions which did not raise self-efficacy to a statistically significant level for the given measure | |||
| Agley et al 202453 | An assessor blinded, randomised controlled feasibility study Sample size n=30 | Self-efficacy for Exercise (SEE).53 57 | Intervention group baseline 56 (49–68), post-intervention 40 (37.5–63.5) and 6 months post follow-up 65 (53.75–78.25). Control group baseline 64 (52.5–74), and post-intervention 56 (51.5–69.5) and 66 (50–76). Interpretation, self-efficacy dropped post-intervention in the intervention group, rose to above baseline at 6 months, but lower than the control at this time point using the SEE measure. Theme: This study predominantly focused on physical activity with self-efficacy measured using the self-efficacy for exercise measure. |
| Colón-Semenza et al 201847 | Feasibility study Sample size n=10 (5 dyads) | Self-efficacy for walking duration 10-item questionnaire (SEW_Dur).103 | The mean self-efficacy for peer mentees increased from 66.8 (SD 24.7) points at baseline to 70 (SD 25.9) points post-intervention. The authors of this study describe these findings as failing to establish clinically important differences using the SEW_Dur measure. Theme: Physical activity in regard to walking using the SEW_Dur measure, therefore, predominantly focused on MS. |
| Ginis, P et al 201652 | Pilot RCT Sample size n=40 | Falls Self-efficacy Scale International (FES-I)55 | Self-efficacy was measured using the FES-I measure.104 Effects at 6 weeks (time (p=0.91) × group (p=0.84 equals p=0.89) and was not raised to a statistically significant level. Themes: Primarily MS based in regarding to gait, walking and FoG. A second theme was NMS focusing on health and well-being looking at the impact of disability, cognition and other symptoms. QoL was measured separately using the SF-36 physical and mental health scales. |
| Mango et al 202144 | Cross-sectional study Sample size n=87 | Self-efficacy for Exercise (SEE).57 | While SEE was measured at baseline, authors report it could not be measured as an outcome measure at another time point due to the cross-sectional design of the study. Themes: This study focused on the impact of PD (MS and NMS) on how PwP used their leisure time. In addition, this study also considered the impact of PD on PwP overcoming barriers to physical activity and socialisation (particularly during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic) |
| Song, J et al 201849 | A two-arm, parallel, single-blinded RCT Sample size n=60 | Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I).55 | Self-efficacy was measured using the FES-I week 12 minus week 0 intervention minus control p value 2.8 (−0.8 to 6.5) p=0.13. The p value indicates that the intervention did not raise self-efficacy to a statistically significant level. Themes: MS related to stepping reaction time test and Functional Gait Assessment and Timed Up and Go test and overall falls prevention. NMS measures included cognition using the mini-mental state exam and Montreal Cognitive Assessment in relation to risk of falling. |
| Interventions which lowered self-efficacy from baseline for the given measure | |||
| Hermanns, M, Haas, BK, Lisk, J 201948 | Longitudinal pre-test and post-test design Sample size n=5 | Physical Activity Assessment Inventory (PAAI).58 | Statistical analysis involved pre-scores and post-scores at baseline and 12 weeks. Simple pre-test and post score comparisons indicated a reduction in self-efficacy from baseline. PAAI total scores measuring self-efficacy using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests maintained non-significant changes (p>0.05) Themes: MS included physical activity measured using a physical activity tracker. The impact of PD (MS and NMS) on engagement with a social media platform was explored. Well-being and QoL were measured using a number of different scales cited in the paper. The PAAI has 13 items which measure confidence and was used as the Self-efficacy Scale. |
MS, motor symptoms; NMS, non-motor symptoms; PD, Parkinson’s disease; PwP, people with Parkinson’s; RCT, randomised controlled trial.