Epilepsy: patient views on their condition and treatment

Care delivery and self-management strategies for children with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a neurological disorder affecting both children and adults. Epileptic seizures are the result of excessive and abnormal cortical cell electrical activity in the brain. In response to criticism that epilepsy care for children has little impact on long-term outcomes, healthcare professionals and administrators have developed various service models and strategies to address perceived inadequacies. This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention for epilepsy versus usual care in children and adolescents with epilepsy and their families.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 14 January 2020: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 13 January 2020), PsycINFO (1887 to 14 January 2020), CINAHL Plus (1937 to 14 January 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We also contacted experts in the field seeking information on unpublished and ongoing studies and checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials recruiting children and adolescents with epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: 1. Seizure frequency and severity; 2. Appropriateness and volume of medication prescribed (including evidence of drug toxicity); 3. Participants' reported knowledge of information and advice received from professionals; 4. Participants' reports of health and quality of life; 5. Objective measures of general health status; 6. Objective measures of social or psychological functioning (including the number of days spent on sick leave/absence from school or work, and employment status); and 7. Costs of care or treatment. The results of the data extraction and quality assessment for each study were presented in structured tables and as a narrative summary. All summary statistics were extracted for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies of eight interventions in the review, reporting on seven distinct self-management programmes for educating or counselling children with epilepsy and their parents, and one new model of care. Based largely on self-reported outcomes, each programme showed some benefits for the well-being of children with epilepsy; however, all of the included studies had methodological flaws. No single programme was evaluated with different study samples, and in no instance was the same outcome measured and reported in the same way across studies, precluding any possible meta-analysis, even if the interventions were considered sufficiently similar to include in meta-analysis.  We chose the outcomes for which data might be important for decisions about the interventions as per guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We found moderate certainty evidence that one of the educational interventions reduced seizure frequency. There was low certainty evidence that two other educational interventions reduced seizure severity, seizure control, and seizure cure rates. The evidence for all other outcomes (drug adherence, knowledge, self-efficacy and self-perception of epilepsy on quality of life) was mixed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Whilst each of the programmes evaluated in this review showed some benefit to children with epilepsy, their impact was extremely variable. No programme showed benefits across the full range of outcomes, and all studies had methodological problems. There is currently insufficient evidence in favour of any single programme. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials using validated measures and considering clinical meaningfulness as well as statistical significance of results is required.

Care delivery and self-management strategies for children with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

In response to criticism that epilepsy care for children has little impact, healthcare professionals and administrators have developed various service models and strategies to address perceived inadequacies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention for epilepsy versus usual care in children with epilepsy and in their families.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (27 September 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to 27 September 2016), Embase (1974 to 27 September 2016), PsycINFO (1887 to 27 September 2016) and CINAHL Plus (1937 to 27 September 2016). In addition, we also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing or recently completed trials, contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies or other prospective studies with a (matched or unmatched) control group (controlled before-and-after studies), or time series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Our review included six interventions reported through seven studies (of which five studies were designed as RCTs). They reported on different education and counselling programmes for children and parents; teenagers and parents; or children, adolescents and their parents. Each programme showed some benefits for the well-being of children with epilepsy, but all had methodological flaws (e.g. in one of the studies designed as an RCT, randomisation failed), no single programme was independently evaluated with different study samples and no interventions were sufficiently homogeneous enough to be included in a meta-analysis,.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While each of the programmes in this review showed some benefit to children with epilepsy, their impacts were extremely variable. No programme showed benefits across the full range of outcomes, and all studies had major methodological problems. At present there is insufficient evidence in favour of any single programme.

Care delivery and self management strategies for adults with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Researchers have criticised epilepsy care for adults for its lack of impact, stimulating the development of various service models and strategies to respond to perceived inadequacies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention beyond that of usual care in adults with epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (9 December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to June 2013), EMBASE (1988 to June 2013), PsycINFO (1887 to December 2013) and CINAHL (1937 to December 2013). In addition, we contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, controlled or matched trials, cohort studies or other prospective studies with a control group, and time series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted all data, and assessed the quality of all included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Our review included 18 different studies of 16 separate interventions, which we classified into seven distinct groups. Most of the studies have methodological weaknesses, and many results from other analyses within studies need to be interpreted with caution because of study limitations. Consequently, there is currently limited evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and quality of life in people with epilepsy. It was not possible to combine study results in a meta-analysis because of the heterogeneity of outcomes, study populations, interventions and time scales across the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Two intervention types, the specialist epilepsy nurse and self management education, have some evidence of benefit. However, we did not find clear evidence that other service models substantially improve outcomes for adults with epilepsy. It is also possible that benefits are situation specific and may not apply to other settings. These studies included only a small number of service providers whose individual competence or expertise may have had a significant impact on outcomes. At present it is not possible to advocate any single model of service provision.

Care delivery and self management strategies for children with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy care for children has been criticised for its lack of impact. Various service models and strategies have been developed in response to perceived inadequacies in care provision for children and their families.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of any specialised or dedicated intervention for the care of children with epilepsy and their families to the effectiveness of usual care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (9 December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2013,Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to June week 2, 2013), EMBASE (1988 to week 25, 2013), PsycINFO (1887 to 11 December 2013) and CINAHL Plus (1937 to 11 December 2013). In addition, we contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled or matched trials, cohort studies or other prospective studies with a control group (controlled before-and-after studies), or time series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each review author independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five interventions reported in seven study reports (of which only four studies of three interventions were designed as RCTs) in this review. They reported on different education and counselling programmes for children, children and parents, teenagers and parents, or children, adolescents and their parents. Each programme showed some benefits for the well-being of children with epilepsy, but each study had methodological flaws (e.g. in one of the studies designed as an RCT, randomisation failed) and no single programme was independently evaluated by more than one study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While each of the programmes in this review showed some benefit to children with epilepsy, their impacts were extremely variable. No programme showed benefits across the full range of outcomes. No study appeared to have demonstrated any detrimental effects but the evidence in favour of any single programme was insufficient to make it possible to recommend one programme rather than another. More studies, carried out by independent research teams, are needed.

The social context and the need of information from patients with epilepsy: evaluating a tertiary referral service

Objective Characterize the social profile and the need of information from patients with refractory epilepsy. Method A semi-structured questionnaire was applied to 103 patients to investigate sociodemographic aspects, pharmacotherapy and any doubts about epilepsy. Results Patients were highly dependent on having a free and accessible supply of antiepileptic drugs. Sixty-eight percent of the population was unemployed, and 26% confirmed receiving social security benefits due to epilepsy. Twenty-nine percent of the population reached high school. Eighty-five percent of the patients had at least one doubt about epilepsy; treatment and epilepsy aspects in general were the main topics. Conclusion : As observed in developed countries, patients with refractory epilepsy from a developing country also have high rates of unemployment and low educational levels. The results raise a concern about the need of information about epilepsy by patients and their families, urging the necessity to invest in strategies to solve this deficiency in knowledge.

Association between knowledge and attitudes of school nurses towards epilepsy and the risk of accidents in Greek schools

School nurses have the ability to enhance the knowledge and tolerance of an entire community and to form more positive and sensitized attitudes to future adults. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the knowledge and attitudes of nurses and the frequency of accidents caused by epilepsy in Greek schools. Our sample consisted of 306 school nurses from all over the country. It was observed that the knowledge of school nurses on epilepsy was quite high, although there were specific aspects that raise concerns on their preparedness to respond to seizure-related emergencies, while their attitudes, although positive, still need improvement. Accidents caused by epilepsy were reported by half of the nurses, and prevention was considered of major importance. Therefore, organized continuous education programs and clear guidelines by the responsible authorities would help school nurses provide better services to students with epilepsy.

WITHDRAWN: Specialist epilepsy nurses for treating epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common serious neurological condition with a 0.5% prevalence. As a result of the perceived deficiencies and suggestions to improve the quality of care offered to people with epilepsy, two models of service provision have been suggested by researchers: specialist epilepsy out-patient clinics (as opposed to the management of patients in general neurology clinics or general medical clinics) and nurse-based liaison services between primary (GP) and secondary/tertiary (hospital-based) care.

OBJECTIVES

To overview the evidence from controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of specialist epilepsy nurses compared to routine care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (TheCochraneLibrary Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (October 2004), GEARS, EMBASE, ECRI, Effectiveness Healthcare Bulletin, Effectiveness Matters, Bandolier, Evidence Based Purchasing, National Research Register and PsycINFO databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled and quasi-randomized trials which considered specialist epilepsy nurse interventions with standard or alternative care were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes investigated included: seizure frequency; appropriateness of medication prescribed; social or psychological functioning scores; knowledge about epilepsy scores; costs of care and adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials were included, two based in general practice and one in a neurology centre. The population of patients differed between trials, for example one study excluded patients with learning disabilities, and one only recruited patients with a new diagnosis. In view of this heterogeneity we decided not to pool results in a meta-analysis. As yet, there is no convincing evidence that specialist epilepsy nurses improve outcomes for people with epilepsy overall. Important outcomes (eg seizure frequency, psychosocial functioning, knowledge of epilepsy, general health status, work days lost, depression and anxiety scores) show no significant improvement. There is some evidence that people who have not had an epileptic seizure in the last six months are less at risk for depression. There is also evidence that newly diagnosed patients whose knowledge about epilepsy is poor may improve their epilepsy knowledge scores after nurse intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is clearly plausible that specialist epilepsy nurses could improve quality in epilepsy care. However, there is as yet little evidence to support this assumption as the present research base is small. Further research is needed to investigate the effectiveness of specialist epilepsy nurses before such recommendations can be made.

WITHDRAWN: Epilepsy clinics versus general neurology or medical clinics

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is the most common serious neurological condition after stroke, with a 0.5% prevalence, and a two to three per cent life time risk of being given a diagnosis of epilepsy in the developed world.As a result of perceived deficiencies of the quality of care offered to people with epilepsy, two models of service provision have been suggested by researchers: specialist epilepsy out-patient clinics (as opposed to the management of people in general neurology clinics or general medical clinics) and nurse-based liaison services between primary (GP) and secondary/tertiary (hospital-based) care.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the evidence from controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of specialist epilepsy clinics compared to routine care. A second similar review investigating the effectiveness of specialist epilepsy nurses has also been published.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2004), EMBASE (1988 to August 2004), PsycINFO (1996 to August 2004) and CINAHL (1982 to August 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled and quasi-randomized trials that considered specialist epilepsy clinic interventions with standard or alternative care were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

No controlled trials of suitable quality were identified for inclusion in the review.

MAIN RESULTS

No controlled trials of suitable quality were identified for inclusion in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not known whether specialist epilepsy clinics improve outcomes for people with epilepsy. As yet, there is no high quality evidence which describes their effectiveness in improving care for people with epilepsy.

Use of computers and the Internet for health information by patients with epilepsy

The purpose of this study was to describe computer and Internet use among an online group and a clinic-based group of people with epilepsy. Greater than 95% of the online group and 60% of the clinic group have access to computers and the Internet. More than 99% of the online group and 57% of the clinic group used the Internet to find health information. A majority of people reported being likely to employ an Internet-based self-management program to control their epilepsy. About 43% reported searching for general information on epilepsy, 30% for medication, 23% for specific types of epilepsy, and 20% for treatment. This study found that people with epilepsy have access to computers and the Internet, desire epilepsy-specific information, and are receptive to online health information on how to manage their epilepsy.

Stigma and safe havens: a medical sociological perspective on African-American female epilepsy patients

PURPOSE

Very little is known about the attitudes and behaviors of minorities with epilepsy. This pilot study explored access to health care, help-seeking behaviors, and adherence to treatment among African-American females with epilepsy.

METHODS

Ethnographic interviews were conducted with 10 African-American female adults.

RESULTS

Findings indicate four major obstacles to care: limited financial resources, lack of knowledge about epilepsy among African-Americans, poor patient-provider communication, and lack of social support. Social support impacted individuals seeking surgery, and also affected purchasing medication, adherence to medical treatment, and needed transportation. Lack of knowledge and misinformation about epilepsy in the African-American community and poor communication with physicians contribute to the social stigma felt by these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The behavioral epidemiology of epilepsy among African-Americans is lacking. This disease exacerbates health disparities for this population. These findings point to a need for a safe haven for these individuals.

The role of the clinical nurse specialist in epilepsy

PURPOSE

To review and describe the key roles of the UK clinical nurse specialist in epilepsy (CNSE), and to identify the specialist nurses' contribution to care through an exploration of CNSE's perceptions of their roles.

METHOD

Using the Delphi technique [Applied Project Design and Analysis, 3rd ed., Churchill Livingstone, London, 2000, p. 243] a national survey of all known UK CNSEs was completed. One hundred and thirty questionnaires identifying nine key hypotheses central to the role of the CNSE were distributed and 76 valid questionnaires returned.

RESULTS

The response rate was 63% and was geographically representative of the UK population of CNSEs. CNSEs were employed in a range of hospital and community settings with differing patient groups. Seventy-two percent of respondents held higher academic nursing qualifications but only 36% had previous epilepsy or neurology experience. Thirty percent of respondents had been employed in the role of CNSE for more than 5 years and 84% were employed as a G or H grade nurse. Only 39% of CNSEs held nurse-led clinics and of those 32% were responsible for all decisions made during their clinic. Furthermore, 40% of CNSEs saw new patients who had not previously been reviewed by one of the medical team. The level of responsibility for drug management was mainly at a monitoring and advisory level but a small number of CNSEs held much greater responsibility. The responses to the nine hypotheses were compared using cross tabulations.

CONCLUSION

The findings of the study and the review of the CNSE in the UK revealed that the key roles of the CNSE were difficult to define. Yet, the respondents identified that there were common core features central to their contribution to care as specialist nurses.

A 'real puzzle': the views of patients with epilepsy about the organisation of care

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how individuals who have a diagnosis of epilepsy have experienced healthcare services or their views about how they should best be organised to meet their ongoing needs.

METHODS

Focus group interviews. Individuals with epilepsy were identified in 5 practices in Wales: 90 were invited, 40 confirmed attendance and 19 individuals attended interviews in 5 groups of size 6, 5, 4, 3 and 1 (Table 2).

INCLUSION CRITERIA

individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of epilepsy, aged between 18-65. The exclusion criteria were learning disability or an inability to travel to interview locations.

RESULTS

The individuals in these group interviews were not 'epilepsy activists' yet they remained critical in extended discussions about the services encountered during their patient careers, wanting more information and advice about how to adapt to problems, particularly after initial diagnosis, more involvement in decision making, rapid access to expertise, preferably local, and improved communication between clinicians. A central concern was the tendency for concerns to be silenced, either overtly, or covertly by perceived haste, so that they felt marginalised, despite their own claims to own expert personal knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Users of existing services for epilepsy are critical of current systems, especially the lack of attention given to providing information, psychosocial support and the wishes of patients to participate in decision making. Any reorganisation of services for individuals with epilepsy should take into account these perceived problems as well as try to reconcile the tension between the distant and difficult to access expertise of specialists and the local but unconfident support of generalists. The potential benefit of harnessing information technology to allow better liaison should be investigated.

What do patients want and get from a primary care epilepsy specialist nurse service?

PURPOSE

To assess what patients want and get from a primary care epilepsy specialist nurse service, and whether this matches their expectations and self-defined needs.

METHODS

A qualitative study nested within a controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a primary care epilepsy specialist nurse service in Bristol, UK. Twelve patients who had had at least one seizure in the previous year were purposely selected from the trial population for an in-depth interview. Interviews were audiotape recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcribed text was methodically coded and themes were identified using the method of constant comparison.

RESULTS

Not all informants wanted to see the epilepsy nurse as they felt their epilepsy was well controlled and thus they did not see the need for care or attention. Those that chose to use the nurse service did so as they wanted information on epilepsy or better control of their seizures. The epilepsy nurse was able to provide them with the information they wanted but was not able to improve their seizure control. Informants felt able to communicate effectively with the nurse and they valued the information and advice received. They were unable to get this kind of communication and empathy from other clinicians. Informants generally praised the nurse service but were aware that it was unlikely to improve the control of their seizures. Most accepted this.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective communication with clinicians is as much, if not more of a priority for patients with epilepsy, than is controlling the clinical manifestations of their condition.

Systematic reviews of specialist epilepsy services

BACKGROUND

Concern has been expressed over UK epilepsy service standards but the most clinically effective model of care is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the current evidence on specialist epilepsy clinics compared to general neurology clinics and specialist epilepsy nurses compared to usual care.

METHODS

Medline, Psychlit, Embase, Healthplan, GEARS, BIDS ISI, UKCHHO, international HTA websites, InterTASC databases and The Cochrane Library were searched to September 1999. Any studies comparing specialist epilepsy clinics or nurses to generalist services or usual care, reporting physical health, costs or generic quality-of-life outcomes were included. Two people independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted data independently. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) quality was assessed by Jadad score and other studies qualitatively by the likelihood of bias.

RESULTS

Findings were one RCT and two other studies on epilepsy clinics and four RCTs and a controlled trial on epilepsy nurses. Data synthesis was inappropriate. Epilepsy clinics showed no evidence of reduced seizure frequency or severity, no quality-of-life information and were more expensive. Epilepsy nurse services showed no evidence of reduced seizure frequency or severity, no effect on quality-of-life but were less expensive.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the superiority of any particular care model for producing better health outcomes.

The experience of earthquakes by patients with epileptic and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

PURPOSE

We sought to understand better the experience of seizures by studying differences in the subjective experience of being in an earthquake between patients with epileptic (EP) and nonepileptic (NES) seizures.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients with CCTV/EEG-documented EP or NES who were in the Seattle metropolitan area during the February 28, 2001 Nisqually earthquake were randomly selected for telephone interviews on their earthquake experiences, including whether they thought they were having a seizure during the event.

RESULTS

Twenty-three percent of EP patients spontaneously volunteered that they initially thought they were having a seizure during the earthquake as compared with none of the NES individuals (p = 0.03). However, 35% of EP and 23% of NES patients thought they were having a seizure during it when asked directly (p = 0.37). The most common reasons given, regardless of seizure type, were shaking and feelings of losing control. Of those responding negatively, 100% of EP and 47% of NES patients said that movement of their environment indicated that it was not a seizure (p = 0.001). EP patients took an average of 42 s to realize that the earthquake was not a seizure compared with 105 s for the NES group (p = 0.06). The earthquake precipitated seizures in both groups (11.5% EP, 9.1% NES).

CONCLUSIONS

EP patients were more likely to mistake the earthquake spontaneously for a seizure. This indicates these two experiences are similar and provides a glimpse into the subjective experience of a seizure for those who have never had one but have experienced an earthquake.

A systematic overview--a decade of research'. The information and counselling needs of people with epilepsy

This paper explores the background to epilepsy in terms of medical impact and psychosocial effects. The argument that information and counselling may be central to the person with epilepsy is explored. The evidence from primary research published between 1990 and 2000 investigating the information and counselling needs of people with epilepsy is appraised and synthesized. This paper seeks to answer the following questions: What are the information and counselling needs of people with epilepsy? What are the preferred formats, timing and delivery of information and counselling? What are the outcomes of information giving and counselling for people with epilepsy? The review suggests that there are unmet needs for personal and general information about epilepsy which may include individual or group education and counselling. Information related to gaining control for people with epilepsy and targeted public education may contribute to improved quality of life for people with epilepsy. Information is required which is individually relevant and could be delivered in small groups or as part of an individual counselling service. Specialist epilepsy clinics and specialist nurses can improve patient knowledge and communication and provide an effective and high quality service for people with epilepsy.

Epilepsy clinics versus general neurology or medical clinics

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is the most common serious neurological condition after stroke, with a 0.5 per cent prevalence, and a two to three per cent life time risk of being given a diagnosis of epilepsy in the developed world. As a result of perceived deficiencies of the quality of care offered to people with epilepsy, two models of service provision have been suggested by researchers: specialist epilepsy out-patient clinics (as opposed to the management of patients in general neurology clinics or general medical clinics) and nurse-based liaison services between primary (GP) and secondary/tertiary (hospital based) care.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to overview the evidence from controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of specialist epilepsy clinics compared to routine care. A second similar review investigating the effectiveness of specialist epilepsy nurses is also underway.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 4, 1999), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 1999), GEARS, BIDS (EMBASE=Excepta Medica(1998-99)), ECRI, Effectiveness Healthcare Bulletin, Effectiveness Matters, Bandolier, Evidence Based Purchasing, National Research Register, Vignettes and expert panels from Standing Group on Health Technology Assessment, PsycLit database, World Wide Web sites and reference lists of articles. In addition, we contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled and quasi-randomized trials which considered specialist epilepsy clinic interventions with standard or alternative care were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

No controlled trials of suitable quality were identified for inclusion in the review.

MAIN RESULTS

No controlled trials of suitable quality were identified for inclusion in the review.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

It is not known whether specialist epilepsy clinics improve outcomes for people with epilepsy. As yet, there is no high quality evidence which describes their effectiveness in improving care for people with epilepsy.

Specialist epilepsy nurses for treating epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is the most common serious neurological condition after stroke, with a 0.5 per cent prevalence, and a two to three per cent life time risk of being given a diagnosis of epilepsy in the developed world. As a result of the perceived deficiencies and suggestions to improve the quality of care offered to people with epilepsy, two models of service provision have been suggested by researchers: specialist epilepsy out-patient clinics (as opposed to the management of patients in general neurology clinics or general medical clinics) and nurse-based liaison services between primary (GP) and secondary/tertiary (hospital based) care.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to overview the evidence from controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of specialist epilepsy nurses compared to routine care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched: The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 1999), MEDLINE, GEARS, BIDS (EMBASE=Excepta Medica), ECRI, Effectiveness Healthcare Bulletin, Effectiveness Matters, Bandolier, Evidence Based Purchasing, National Research Register, Vignettes and expert panels from Standing Group on Health Technology Assessment, PsycLit database, World Wide Web sites and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled and quasi-randomized trials which considered specialist epilepsy nurse interventions with standard or alternative care were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. The following outcomes were assessed: (a) seizure frequency (b) appropriateness of medication prescribed (c) social or psychological functioning scores (d) knowledge about epilepsy scores (e) objective measures of general health status/quality of life (f) patients' reports of information received (g) number of days spent on sick leave/missing school and employment status (h) costs of care (i) adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials were included, two based in general practice and one in a neurology centre. The population of patients differed between trials, for example one study excluded patients with learning disabilities, and one only recruited patients with a new diagnosis. In view of this heterogeneity we decided not to pool results in a meta-analysis. As yet, there is no convincing evidence that specialist epilepsy nurses improve outcomes for people with epilepsy overall. Important outcomes (e.g. seizure frequency, psychosocial functioning, knowledge of epilepsy, general health status, work days lost, depression and anxiety scores) show no significant improvement. There is some evidence that those patients who have not had an epileptic seizure in the last six months are less at risk for depression. There is also evidence that newly diagnosed patients whose knowledge about epilepsy is poor may improve their epilepsy knowledge scores after nurse intervention.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

It is clearly plausible that specialist epilepsy nurses could improve quality in epilepsy care. However, there is as yet little evidence to support this assumption as the present research base is small. Further research is needed to investigate the effectiveness of specialist epilepsy nurses before such recommendations can be made.

Patients' perspectives on services for epilepsy: a survey of patient satisfaction, preferences and information provision in 2394 people with epilepsy

The objectives of this study were to provide a comprehensive survey of satisfaction with care, care preferences and information provision for patients with epilepsy, and to formulate recommendations for the development of epilepsy services based on the findings. A questionnaire was distributed to 4620 patients who were currently receiving antiepileptic drugs for epilepsy, regardless of aetiology, duration or severity. Two different samples of patients with epilepsy were questioned: the first an unselected sample drawn from primary care, and the second consisting of consecutive patients drawn from hospital clinics. There were 2394 responses to the questionnaire. Satisfaction with primary and hospital care was high, both overall and for specific aspects. However, two major shortcomings were identified. First, few respondents felt that their care was shared between hospital and GP. Secondly, provision of information about epilepsy was perceived to be poor, particularly by the elderly. Younger patients and patients with severe epilepsy had a higher satisfaction with and preference for hospital care, whereas older age groups were more satisfied with and preferred primary care. Patients' main reasons for preferring primary care were that it was more personal and the GP was more familiar with them, and secondary care was preferred because the hospital doctor knew more about epilepsy. In conclusion, we have conducted the largest representative UK survey of patients' perceptions and views of the care available for epilepsy. Although patient satisfaction was high, information provision is poor and the shared care model is not operating effectively. We recommend that an emphasis be placed on methods for improving the interface between primary and secondary care. The setting up of hospital epilepsy centres, as recommended by the recently published Clinical Standards Advisory Group report on epilepsy, would provide a focus for these efforts and for information provision.

The impact of epilepsy from the patient's perspective I. Descriptions and subjective perceptions

This study surveyed the perceptions about and subjective experience of 1023 people with epilepsy in two community-based samples: one from a national postal survey; the other callers to the Epilepsy Foundation. Response to a mail survey was 49%. In comparison with US Census Bureau norms, respondents had received less education, were less likely to be employed or married, and came from lower income households. Complex partial seizures were the most prevalent seizure type, but a convulsion had occurred in 61%. Fifty percent of respondents reported incomplete control of their seizure disorder, although 25% of these had a seizure in the prior year. Thirteen percent had a longest inter-seizure interval of a year or greater, 37% of 3 months, 22% of 1 month, 10% of 1 week and 4% of 1 day. Respondents listed uncertainty and fear of having a seizure as the worst thing about having epilepsy. Lifestyle, school, driving, and employment limits were also listed as major problems. When asked to rank a list of potential problems, cognitive impairment was ranked highest. These data indicate that ongoing medical and psychosocial problems continue for those with epilepsy in the view of those questioned and their families, even in a sample where the majority report good control of their epilepsy.

The impact of epilepsy from the patient's perspective II: views about therapy and health care

A national survey of 1023 people with epilepsy in the US assessed their attitudes about their therapies. Subjects were drawn from responders to a previous national survey of US households or from those who phoned the Epilepsy Foundation. Overall response rate was 49%. Approximately 90% of the respondents were taking medications for their epilepsy. Only 56% were on monotherapy, while 26% were taking two, 6% three, and 2% four medications. Only 68% of respondents were very satisfied with their current seizure medications. When asked to rank five areas of importance regarding their seizure medication, the rank order (highest to lowest) was seizure control, fewer side effects, convenient dosing regimens and cost. Adverse medication events were listed in descending rank order as problems with cognition, energy level, school performance, childbearing, coordination, and sexual function. Inter-individual differences in side effects of concern were listed, suggesting medication choices should be individualized according to potential side effects. Twenty percent of 920 respondents adjusted their medications on their own, by adjusting amount (62%), dosing schedule (31%), or both (3%). Eighty percent of respondents were satisfied with their medical care systems. In this group, 82% had health insurance that covered epilepsy. The large majority (94%) of respondents had seen a neurologist. Subjects expressed dissatisfaction about time limits and lack of accessible information about epilepsy. People with epilepsy are generally satisfied with efforts to treat their disorder, but adverse events are of concern. Many patients requested more information about epilepsy.

Women with epilepsy: their views about their treatment and care

This study reports the results of a questionnaire survey of female members of the British Epilepsy Association. The women were asked about their epilepsy and its management. A questionnaire was sent to 6000 BEA women members of whom 1855 (31%) replied. The majority of women (89%) stated they currently take older antiepileptic medications, either as monotherapy or in combination with others. Newer antiepileptic drugs were prescribed to 30% of women. The most frequently mentioned antiepileptic drug side-effects were tiredness and forgetfulness. Seventy percent of the sample considered that the lack of energy had at least a moderate impact on their life. Thirty-eight percent of women would have liked better seizure control whilst 32% agreed that they would prefer to change to a medication with fewer side-effects. However, 49% were reluctant to change their medication. Fifty-nine percent stated that they see their hospital specialist regularly whilst half the sample (49%) saw their GP regularly. Hospital specialists on the whole, played a more active role in the management of epilepsy than GPs. Many women (68%) felt that their GP's main task appeared to be to write prescriptions and 40% felt that they knew more about their epilepsy than their GP. However, the women generally perceived that their GP or hospital specialists were sympathetic to their condition and their concerns.

Patient views on primary care services for epilepsy and areas where additional professional knowledge would be welcome

In the past decade there has been increasing interest in the part that general practice can play in the care of people with epilepsy. Primary care services for epilepsy vary from practice to practice. Some studies have suggested that people with epilepsy prefer secondary care services and are not keen for their epilepsy to be managed in general practice, but much of the data were collected in secondary care. This study collected data from various sources about present provision of services, patient satisfaction with services, views about service development, areas where GP knowledge may be improved and whether the site of data collection influenced the results. A questionnaire was piloted, then distributed and collected through branches of the British Epilepsy Association, general practice and secondary care clinics. Data collected were both quantitative and qualitative. One hundred and seventy-eight questionnaires were collected from three sources. The responders were a severe seizure group. Structured care in general practice was uncommon with 54% being seen only when needed. Dose and type of antiepileptic medication was rarely altered in general practice. Information about their condition was given to 44% of the responders by their GP. Sixty-one percent would prefer their epilepsy care to be 'shared' between primary and secondary services. The majority of patients were satisfied with GP services, felt they could easily discuss their epilepsy, but 58% felt they 'rarely' or 'never' received enough information about their condition in general practice. Satisfaction with GP care varied, dependent on where the data were collected. Patients would value more information and more time to discuss the effects of their epilepsy. In conclusion general practice care for epilepsy is still reactive. Patients value more information and more time to discuss implications. The data collection point affects the results; any conclusions about the organisation of epilepsy care should draw data from community patient samples.

Are what people know about their epilepsy and what they want from an epilepsy service related?

This study set out to investigate the level of knowledge about epilepsy in general and in relation to the patients' own condition, in patients attending a tertiary referral epilepsy outpatient clinic. It also sought to investigate patient satisfaction with the service and whether knowledge acquired about epilepsy related to that satisfaction. Seventy out of 94 patients responded to the Epilepsy Knowledge Profile Questionnaires (general and personal knowledge of epilepsy) and a questionnaire assessing service satisfaction. Patients were found to know more about epilepsy in general than about their own condition. In particular some patients were unable to give accurate indications of their drug regimes. Over 91% were satisfied with the serviced they received but this bore no relation to information they had acquired or wanted about epilepsy. Multidisciplinary services were requested by a sizeable percentage of patients but especially access to a specialist nurse in epilepsy. The study highlights the need for clinicians to check patients' knowledge about their condition and for further work to clarify the source of patients' satisfaction with service delivery.

Managing epilepsy in general practice: the dissemination and uptake of a free audit package, and collated results from 12 practices in England and Wales

This study aimed to assess the uptake and use by general practitioners of a free epilepsy audit protocol, and describe the care provided by practices which returned completed audits. A protocol for epilepsy audit in general practice was designed and described in the medical press. Practices were invited to reply. Responders were provided with the protocol. A total of 215 practices responded to the articles in the press. Questionnaires asking how they had used the audit protocol were sent to them 18 months later. One hundred and seventy (79%) of the 215 responding practices returned the questionnaires. Forty-seven (28%) had collected some or all of the data. Twenty-two (13%) submitted data of which 12 (7%) matched the original protocol. Aggregated list sizes for these 12 practices was 75689 and 502 (0.66%) patients were being treated. Of these, 60% were seizure free and 11% were having more than one seizure per month. Seventy-one were receiving monotherapy and only two patients were taking more than three drugs. Eighty-eight per cent of patients still having seizures had been seen by their GP for their epilepsy in the last 12 months. In 18% of cases, information on epilepsy lifestyle issues had been given and noted. Offering a free epilepsy audit package can stimulate interest amongst practices in the topic and resulted in 13% collecting and submitting their data for analysis. Practices reported a higher prevalence for epilepsy (0.66%) than in previous studies. The majority of patients with active epilepsy (88%) had been seen by a general practitioner in the last 12 months. Most (71%) were receiving monotherapy, but recording of seizure frequency and provision of information about epilepsy was low.

Towards an evaluation of the effectiveness of an epilepsy nurse in primary care

This paper reports on early results of an investigation of the effectiveness of a specialist epilepsy nurse in primary care. Based on before-and-after interviews with sub-samples of adults with epilepsy, these results suggest that not only are expectations of the usefulness of epilepsy nurse interventions high, but also that these expectations are not disappointed in practice. Particular areas where epilepsy nurses may be able to complement and enhance medical approaches to treatment and care are identified.

New departures in epilepsy care: an epilepsy liaison service

Epilepsy care in the UK is patchy, fragmented and poorly coordinated. Primary care management is appropriate for many people with epilepsy but there are practical difficulties in delivering care at this level which renders the service that patients get far below the best they could receive. Epilepsy care in a primary setting is often not audited: patients managed purely in a primary setting may be denied access to recent advances in diagnostic techniques and therapies for epilepsy. As healthcare becomes more consumer led, purchasers of epilepsy care [largely general practitioners (GPs)] must be more aware of what they need to purchase to improve care for people with epilepsy within their own practice. People with epilepsy and their relatives are already beginning to make their own demands and requests for improvement in epilepsy care, both at primary and secondary levels of care: their needs will have to be taken into account. The Birmingham University Epilepsy Liaison Project aims to bridge the gap between primary and secondary care, and provide both advice about audit of epilepsy care and educational materials for the primary care physician. It also provides for better communication between the primary care physician, the patient and secondary and tertiary facilities. We hope, if it fulfils its designed function, that it will provide a model of future care for epilepsy in this country.

What people with epilepsy want from a hospital clinic

A questionnaire was sent to 511 patients with epilepsy who were being reviewed at the clinics of two consultant neurologists. The questionnaire asked 19 questions about seizure type and how the diagnosis was given. It also asked how much information was given about the disease and advice about living with it. There were also questions about counselling and preference for hospital or community care. Over 96% returned the questionnaire. About one third said they were not told what epilepsy was, over 90% wanted more information about the disease, and about three quarters felt they had not been given enough information about the side-effects of antiepileptic drugs. Over 60% wanted to talk to someone other than a consultant about epilepsy, the most frequent person requested being a specialist nurse. Despite this, three quarters wanted to continue to attend the hospital clinic and 89% were generally satisfied with their hospital management. This survey has highlighted a number of shortcomings in the structure of our clinics. It should be possible to correct them by providing more structured information and having a nurse specialist available.