Non-pharmacological interventions for epilepsy in people with intellectual disabilities

A qualitative study of the communication and information needs of people with learning disabilities and epilepsy with physicians, nurses and carers

Background

Living with a chronic condition such as epilepsy can have a debilitating effect on the individual and their carers. Managing epilepsy among people with learning disabilities may present a challenge because of limited communication and may require a multidisciplinary approach. The study investigated the communication and information needs of people with learning disabilities with epilepsy and their physicians, nurses and carers.

Methods

Qualitative designed was adopted to collect data from 15 community-based people with mild learning disabilities with epilepsy and 13 carers. Recorded data were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

Results

A range of findings emerged related to patient communication and information needs. These included: Knowledge regarding epilepsy; involvement; honesty and openness when giving information and consistency in provision of information.

Conclusion

People with learning disabilities with epilepsy and their carers would like to know more about epilepsy, to be more involved decision makings through communication in the management of epilepsy to enable them feedback information regarding their health.

Behavioral disorder in people with an intellectual disability and epilepsy: A report of the Intellectual Disability Task Force of the Neuropsychiatric Commission of ILAE

The management and needs of people with intellectual disability (ID) and epilepsy are well evidenced; less so, the comorbidity of behavioral disorder in this population. "Behavioral disorder" is defined as behaviors that are difficult or disruptive, including stereotypes, difficult or disruptive behavior, aggressive behavior toward other people, behaviors that lead to injury to self or others, and destruction of property. These have an important link to emotional disturbance. This report, produced by the Intellectual Disability Task Force of the Neuropsychiatric Commission of the ILAE, aims to provide a brief review of some key areas of concern regarding behavioral disorder among this population and proposes a range of research and clinical practice recommendations generated by task force members. The areas covered in this report were identified by experts in the field as being of specific relevance to the broad epilepsy community when considering behavioral disorder in persons with epilepsy and ID; they are not intended to be exhaustive. The practice recommendations are based on the authors' review of the limited research in this field combined with their experience supporting this population. These points are not graded but can be seen as expert opinion guiding future research and clinical practice.

Wordless intervention for people with epilepsy and learning disabilities (WIELD): a randomised controlled feasibility trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the feasibility of a full-scale randomised controlled trial of a picture booklet to improve quality of life for people with epilepsy and learning disabilities.

TRIAL DESIGN

A randomised controlled feasibility trial. Randomisation was not blinded and was conducted using a centralised secure database and a blocked 1:1 allocation ratio.

SETTING

Epilepsy clinics in 1 English National Health Service (NHS) Trust.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with learning disabilities and epilepsy who had: a seizure within the past 12 months, meaningful communication and a carer with sufficient proficiency in English.

INTERVENTION

Participants in the intervention group used a picture booklet with a trained researcher, and a carer present. These participants kept the booklet, and were asked to use it at least twice more over 20 weeks. The control group received treatment as usual, and were provided with a booklet at the end of the study.

OUTCOME MEASURES

7 feasibility criteria were used relating to recruitment, data collection, attrition, potential effect on epilepsy-related quality of life (Epilepsy and Learning Disabilities Quality of Life Scale, ELDQOL) at 4-week, 12-week and 20-week follow-ups, feasibility of methodology, acceptability of the intervention and potential to calculate cost-effectiveness.

OUTCOME

The recruitment rate of eligible patients was 34% and the target of 40 participants was reached. There was minimal missing data and attrition. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed; data from the outcome measures suggest a benefit from the intervention on the ELDQOL behaviour and mood subscales at 4 and 20 weeks follow-up. The booklet and study methods were positively received, and no adverse events were reported. There was a positive indication of the potential for a cost-effectiveness analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

All feasibility criteria were fully or partially met, therefore confirming feasibility of a definitive trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN80067039.

Implications for public health research of models and theories of disability: a scoping study and evidence synthesis

Background

Public health interventions that are effective in the general population are often assumed to apply to people with impairments. However, the evidence to support this is limited and hence there is a need for public health research to take a more explicit account of disability and the perspectives of people with impairments.

Objectives

(1) To examine the literature on theories and models of disability; (2) to assess whether or not, and how, intervention studies of effectiveness could incorporate more inclusive approaches that are consistent with these theories and models; and (3) to use the findings to draw out implications for improving evaluative study designs and evidence-based practice.

Review methods

The project is a scoping review of the literature. The first stage examines theories and models of disability and reflects on possible connections between theories of disability and public health paradigms. This discussion is used to develop an ethical–empirical decision aid/checklist, informed by a human rights approach to disability and ecological approaches to public health. We apply this decision aid in the second stage of the review to evaluate the extent to which the 30 generic public health reviews of interventions and the 30 disability-specific public health interventions include the diverse experiences of disability. Five deliberation panels were also organised to further refine the decision aid: one with health-care professionals and four with politically and socially active disabled people.

Results

The evidence from the review indicated that there has been limited public health engagement with theories and models of disability. Outcome measures were often insensitive to the experiences of disability. Even when disabled people were included, studies rarely engaged with their experiences in any meaningful way. More inclusive research should reflect how people live and ‘flourish’ with disability.

Limitations

The scoping review provides a broad appraisal of a particular field. It generates ideas for future practice rather than a definite framework for action.

Conclusions

Our ethical–empirical decision aid offers a critical framework with which to evaluate current research practice. It also offers a resource for promoting more ethical and evidence-based public health research that is methodologically robust while being sensitive to the experiences of disability.

Future work

Developing more inclusive research and interventions that avoid conceptualising disability as either a ‘burden’ or ‘problem’ is an important starting point. This includes exploring ways of refining and validating current common outcome measures to ensure that they capture a diverse range of disabling experiences, as well as generating evidence on meaningful ways of engaging a broad range of disabled children and adults in the research process.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for children with a psychiatric disorder and mild intellectual disability to borderline intellectual functioning: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Children with intellectual disability frequently have difficulties in adapting to their environment. The extent of the experienced problems does not only depend on cognitive functioning but is influenced by other factors, such as the presence of a psychiatric disorder or other brain disorders, or adverse environmental factors. Several epidemiological studies show that children with intellectual disabilities are at an increased risk to develop psychiatric disorders. This is also true for youth with a mild intellectual disability and even those with borderline intellectual functioning (mild to borderline intellectual disability (MBID)). Psychiatric disorders are often overlooked because behavioral problems are rather attributed to the intellectual disability. Consequently, effective psychiatric interventions, which are needed to improve the level of functioning, are not applied. This review aimed to systematically evaluate the currently available, qualitatively sound research concerning the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions, specifically directed at psychiatric disorders in children with MBID. Assessed for eligibility were 1409 unique reports, and the review ultimately included only 12 reports. Review of the results and meta-analyses showed that the majority of studies suffer from multiple limitations and that methodological variations between studies are extensive. This possibly reflects the high variance of factors that may be involved in MBID. It will be important in future research to address multi-causality.

Non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities

BACKGROUND

Approximately 30% of patients with epilepsy remain refractory to drug treatment and continue to experience seizures whilst taking one or more antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Several non-pharmacological interventions that may be used in conjunction with or as an alternative to AEDs are available for refractory patients. In view of the fact that seizures in people with intellectual disabilities are often complex and refractory to pharmacological interventions, it is evident that good quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to assess the efficacy of alternatives or adjuncts to pharmacological interventions.This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review (Beavis 2007) published in The Cochrane Library (2007, Issue 4).

OBJECTIVES

To assess data derived from randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities.Non-pharmacological interventions include, but are not limited to, the following.• Surgical procedures.• Specialised diets, for example, the ketogenic diet, or vitamin and folic acid supplementation.• Psychological interventions for patients or for patients and carers/parents, for example, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), electroencephalographic (EEG) biofeedback and educational intervention.• Yoga.• Acupuncture.• Relaxation therapy (e.g. music therapy).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (19 August 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via CRSO (19 August 2014), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 19 August 2014) and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost, 1887 to 19 August 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted study data.

MAIN RESULTS

One study is included in this review. When two surgical procedures were compared, results indicated that corpus callosotomy with anterior temporal lobectomy was more effective than anterior temporal lobectomy alone in improving quality of life and performance on IQ tests among people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities. No evidence was found to support superior benefit in seizure control for either intervention. This is the only study of its kind and was rated as having an overall unclear risk of bias. The previous update (December 2010) identified one RCT in progress. The study authors have confirmed that they are aiming to publish by the end of 2015; therefore this study (Bjurulf 2008) has not been included in the current review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the need for well-designed randomised controlled trials conducted to assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions on seizure and behavioural outcomes in people with intellectual disabilities and epilepsy.

Social validity of randomised controlled trials in health services research and intellectual disabilities: a qualitative exploration of stakeholder views

Background

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard of evidence-based practice in medicine but they have had limited influence in the field of intellectual disabilities. Previous literature suggests that participants and professionals have limited tolerance for this type of research methodology. However, it is not known how well service users, carers and other health professionals understand and accept the need for RCTs, and why it is important for individuals with intellectual disabilities to be included in this kind of research.

Methods

We examined individual perceptions of RCTs in 51 participants (18 carers, 6 service users and 27 professionals) using semi-structured interviews. A framework approach was adopted in the analysis of data.

Results

We found that participants had concerns about capacity and resource allocation but held positive views towards this type of research methodology. Understanding of the principles behind RCTs was poor amongst service users and a minority of carers, but mediated by previous exposure to research for professionals.

Conclusions

The social validity of RCTs in intellectual disabilities may be compromised by lack of understanding of the design and the on-going concerns about obtaining informed consent especially in incapacitated adults. However, the overall finding that the need for this form of research was seen in a positive light suggests that there is a turning point in the perceptions of stakeholders working in intellectual disabilities services. We recommend that researchers include on-going education on RCT design during trials, tailoring it to all stakeholders with emphasis on strong service user and care involvement. This could be a pivotal element in improving acceptability of, and recruitment to RCTs.