Search for a command to run...
Parkinson’s disease (PD) represents a growing global health challenge, with prevalence doubling from 2.5 million cases in 1990 to 6.1 million in 2016, and projections suggesting it will exceed 12 million by 2040. This exponential growth has been termed the “Parkinson’s pandemic.” China and the United States, which together account for nearly half of the global PD population, have developed markedly different approaches to end-of-life (EOL) care, shaped by their distinct healthcare systems and cultural contexts. Understanding these differences is crucial for developing effective global strategies. This systematic review and meta-analysis comprehensively compares advanced-stage PD care between these two nations to quantify disparities and inform evidence-based policy interventions. We conducted a rigorous systematic review following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searching six databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang) from January 2015 to October 2025. The timeframe was selected to capture contemporary care patterns following major healthcare reforms in both countries (Affordable Care Act implementation in the US; Healthy China 2030 initiative). Inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed studies reporting on advanced PD (Hoehn-Yahr stage ≥ 3) with outcome measures including survival, quality of life (QoL), palliative care access, caregiver burden, rehabilitation utilization, or healthcare costs. The sample size threshold (n ≥ 100) balanced statistical power with inclusivity. Two independent reviewers screened 3,847 records with excellent agreement (Cohen’s κ = 0.82–0.89). Quality assessment employed the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS ≥ 8 indicating high quality) for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (RoB 2) for randomized controlled trials, with GRADE criteria determining evidence certainty. Meta-analyses utilized random-effects models with comprehensive heterogeneity assessment (I² statistics, meta-regression) and publication bias evaluation (Egger’s test, trim-and-fill analysis). Sensitivity analyses included high-quality studies only and examined the influence of large database studies. Our analysis of 42 high-quality studies encompassing over 125,000 patients revealed profound and systematic cross-national disparities across multiple domains. In terms of care access, US patients demonstrated significantly higher hospice enrollment rates (28–35% vs. <1% in China, p < 0.001; HIGH certainty evidence) and greater access to specialized neuropalliative programs (15% of US centers vs. <1% in China). These differences translated into measurable quality of life disparities, with Chinese patients scoring 17.6 points worse on the PDQ-39 scale (95% CI 14.8–20.4; MODERATE certainty, I²=64%), a difference exceeding the minimal clinically important difference nearly four-fold. The burden on families showed equally striking patterns: Chinese families provided 94% of EOL care compared to 61% in the US, resulting in significantly higher caregiver depression rates (47% vs. 32%, OR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.45–2.47) and burden scores (Zarit difference: 10.2 points, 95% CI 7.8–12.6). Access to interventions revealed additional gaps, with only 9.2% of Chinese patients receiving physical therapy versus 14.4% in the US (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.49–0.76), and a 5.25-fold disparity in deep brain stimulation access (4.2% vs. 0.8%). Economic analysis demonstrated substantial out-of-pocket burden differences: Chinese families paid 58% of total costs ($4,200 annually) versus 12% for US families ($2,800). Meta-regression identified healthcare system characteristics as the primary driver of these disparities (R²=0.42, p < 0.001). This comprehensive analysis reveals that systematic differences in healthcare infrastructure, insurance coverage, and cultural care models are associated with markedly divergent EOL experiences for PD patients in China versus the United States. These findings have policy implications. For China, our findings suggest consideration of: (1) establishing pilot neuropalliative programs in tertiary centers with phased national expansion; (2) developing caregiver support infrastructure including respite care and training programs; (3) leveraging telemedicine platforms to address urban-rural disparities. For the United States, priorities may include: (1) addressing racial disparities in rehabilitation access through culturally competent outreach; (2) expanding Medicare coverage for maintenance therapy; (3) earlier integration of neuropalliative care. Implementation science research would strengthen the evidence base for culturally adapted interventions. As global PD prevalence accelerates, lessons from this bilateral comparison provide a framework for other nations confronting similar challenges in neurological care delivery.