Chapter 4 96 22. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 13, 201–216 (2019). 23. Bem, S. L. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychol. Rev. 88, 354–364 (1981). 24. Wood, W. & Eagly, A. H. Two Traditions of Research on Gender Identity. Sex Roles 73, 461–473 (2015). 25. Sinclair, S., Pappas, J. & Lun, J. The interpersonal basis of stereotype-relevant self-views. J. Pers. 77, 1343–1364 (2009). 26. C. The Loss of Identity and the Quest for a New Self. Parkinsons News Today https:// parkinsonsnewstoday.com/2022/01/28/loss-identity-quest-new-self/ (2022). 27. Forber-Pratt, A. J., Lyew, D. A., Mueller, C. & Samples, L. B. Disability identity development: A systematic review of the literature. Rehabil. Psychol. 62, 198–207 (2017). 28. Siddiqi, B. & Koemeter-Cox, A. A Call to Action: Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Parkinson’s Research and Care. J. Parkinsons. Dis. 11, 905–908 (2021). 29. Leventhal, H., Halm, E. A., Horowitz, C. & Ozakinci, G. Living with chronic illness: A contextualised, self-regulation approach. in The Sage handbook of health psychology 197–240 (unknown, 2004). 30. Roger, K. S. & Medved, M. I. Living with Parkinson’s disease-managing identity together. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Health Well-being. 5, (2010). 31. Platt, M. M. IDENTITY AND PARKINSON’S DISEASE: AM I MORE THAN THE SUM OF MY PARTS? J. Loss Trauma 9, 315–326 (2004). 32. Weiner, S. J. Contextualizing care: An essential and measurable clinical competency. Patient Educ. Couns. (2021) doi:10.1016/j.pec.2021.06.016. 33. Binns-Calvey, A. E. et al. Listening to the Patient: A Typology of Contextual Red Flags in Disease Management Encounters. J Patient Cent Res Rev 7, 39–46 (2020). 34. Perepezko, K. et al. Social role functioning in Parkinson’s disease: A mixed-methods systematic review. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 34, 1128–1138 (2019). 35. Hodgson, J. H., Garcia, K. & Tyndall, L. Parkinson’s disease and the couple relationship: A qualitative analysis. Fam. Syst. Health 22, 101–118 (2004). 36. Constant, E. et al. Relationship Dynamics of Couples Facing Advanced-Stage Parkinson’s Disease: A Dyadic Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Front. Psychol. 12, 770334 (2021). 37. Gamarel, K. & Revenson, T. Dyadic Adaptation to Chronic Illness: The Importance of Considering Context in Understanding Couples’. in Couple Resilience (ed. Karen Skerrett, K. F.) 83–106 (unknown, 2015). 38. Martin, S. C. Relational Issues Within Couples Coping With Parkinson’s Disease: Implications and Ideas for Family-Focused Care. J. Fam. Nurs. 22, 224–251 (2016). 39. Fink, M. et al. Objective Data Reveals Gender Preferences for Patients’ Primary Care Physician. J. Prim. Care Community Health 11, 2150132720967221 (2020). 40. Dagostini, C. M. et al. Patients’ preferences regarding physicians’ gender: a clinical center crosssectional study. Sao Paulo Med. J. 140, 134–143 (2022). 41. Nuno, J. et al. What attributes do patients prefer in a family physician? A cross-sectional study in a northern region of Portugal. BMJ Open 11, e035130 (2021). 42. Kerssens, J. J., Bensing, J. M. & Andela, M. G. Patient preference for genders of health professionals. Soc. Sci. Med. 44, 1531–1540 (1997). 43. Berger, R., Bulmash, B., Drori, N., Ben-Assuli, O. & Herstein, R. The patient-physician relationship: an account of the physician’s perspective. Isr. J. Health Policy Res. 9, 33 (2020).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw