Developing an Evidence-Based Epilepsy Risk Assessment eHealth Solution: From Concept to Market

User involvement in the design and development of medical devices in epilepsy: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to describe the involvement of persons with epilepsy (PWE), healthcare professionals (HP) and caregivers (CG) in the design and development of medical devices is epilepsy.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligibility criteria included peer-reviewed research focusing on medical devices for epilepsy management, involving users (PWE, CG, and HP) during the MDD process. Searches were performed on PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, and a total of 55 relevant articles were identified and reviewed.

RESULTS

From 1999 to 2023, there was a gradual increase in the number of publications related to user involvement in epilepsy medical device development (MDD), highlighting the growing interest in this field. The medical devices involved in these studies encompassed a range of seizure detection tools, healthcare information systems, vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and electroencephalogram (EEG) technologies reflecting the emphasis on seizure detection, prediction, and prevention. PWE and CG were the primary users involved, underscoring the importance of their perspectives. Surveys, usability testing, interviews, and focus groups were the methods used for capturing user perspectives. User involvement occurs in four out of the five stages of MDD, with production being the exception.

SIGNIFICANCE

User involvement in the MDD process for epilepsy management is an emerging area of interest holding a significant promise for improving device quality and patient outcomes. This review highlights the need for broader and more effective user involvement, as it currently lags in the development of commercially available medical devices for epilepsy management. Future research should explore the benefits and barriers of user involvement to enhance medical device technologies for epilepsy.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

This review covers studies that have involved users in the development process of medical devices for epilepsy. The studies reported here have focused on getting input from people with epilepsy, their caregivers, and healthcare providers. These devices include tools for detecting seizures, stimulating nerves, and tracking brain activity. Most user feedback was gathered through surveys, usability tests, interviews, and focus groups. Users were involved in nearly every stage of device development except production. The review highlights that involving users can improve device quality and patient outcomes, but more effective involvement is needed in commercial device development. Future research should focus on the benefits and challenges of user involvement.

Epilepsy risk awareness and background factors in patients with epilepsy and family caregivers

OBJECTIVES

Patients with epilepsy are at risk of various injuries throughout their lives. Awareness of patients and family caregivers about risk factors and self-care prevents potential injuries. This study aimed to investigate epilepsy risk awareness and background factors in patients with epilepsy and family caregivers.

METHODS

This descriptive study was conducted with the recruitment of 120 patients with epilepsy and 120 family caregivers who were referred to the Neurological Clinic of Tabriz Razi Hospital in Iran. Data was collected using Persian version of the epilepsy risk awareness questionnaires for patients (3rd Edition) and family caregivers.

RESULTS

The average age of the patients (65.8% women) was 29.2 and of the family caregivers (58.3% women) 41.5 years. The average score of risk awareness in family caregivers was 82.6 ± 8.8 and higher than that in patients with epilepsy 84.9 ± 8.5 (obtainable score: 0-120). Compared to the maximum score, the average scores of both groups in all domains including epilepsy, personal security, physical health, and mental health were low. A statistically significant relationship was observed between the mean scores of risk awareness and some background variables.

CONCLUSION

The results showed that epilepsy risk awareness in patients and family caregivers is low and there is a need for education and support. By developing education programs for the patient and their family and increasing epilepsy risk awareness, patients can be protected from potential risks and their safety and quality of life can be improved.

The Epilepsy Risk Awareness (ERA) Scale: A New Era for Holistic Risk Assessment in Epilepsy

Objective: Best care in epilepsy balances protecting people with epilepsy from risks and avoiding undue restrictions in order to improve quality of life. To date, no single risk assessment tool has been widely adopted by both people with epilepsy and health-care professionals such as specialist epilepsy nurses. The present research refined the Epilepsy Risk Awareness (ERA) Scale, a validated and holistic risk assessment tool, by assessing test-retest reliability of each question and incorporating suggestions from patients regarding design and content. Methods: The draft clinical scale was administered to 102 adult participants from the Epilepsy Service at the Royal Free London National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust on two occasions. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted-intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates were used to assess test-retest reliability of questions, and thematic analysis was used to analyze participants' comments and feedback. Following analysis, the ERA Scale was amended. Of the 102 participants, 32 conducted a further review of the revised ERA Scale to test completion time and provide final comments. Results: ICC reliability level estimates varied from "poor to moderate" to "good to excellent," and four qualitative themes were identified. The ERA Scale was amended accordingly to enhance practicality and usefulness, reducing completion time to approximately 5 min. Significance: The ERA Scale is a validated tool that aims to change clinical practice by standardizing risk assessment in epilepsy, providing a holistic approach that focuses on improved safety and quality of life.

Selecting Evidence-Based Content for Inclusion in Self-Management Apps for Pressure Injuries in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury: Participatory Design Study

BACKGROUND

Technological solutions, particularly mobile health (mHealth), have been shown to be potentially viable approaches for sustaining individuals' self-management of chronic health conditions. Theory-based interventions are more successful, as evidence-based information is an essential prerequisite for appropriate self-management. However, several reviews have shown that many existing mobile apps fail to be either theoretically grounded or based on evidence. Although some authors have attempted to address these two issues by focusing on the design and development processes of apps, concrete efforts to systematically select evidence-based content are scant.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to present a procedure for the participatory identification of evidence-based content to ground the development of a self-management app.

METHODS

To illustrate the procedure, we focused on the prevention and management of pressure injuries (PIs) in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). The procedure involves the following three steps: (1) identification of existing evidence through review and synthesis of existing recommendations on the prevention and self-management of PIs in SCI; (2) a consensus meeting with experts from the field of SCI and individuals with SCI to select the recommendations that are relevant and applicable to community-dwelling individuals in their daily lives; and (3) consolidation of the results of the study.

RESULTS

In this case study, at the end of the three-step procedure, the content for an mHealth intervention was selected in the form of 98 recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes a procedure for the participatory identification and selection of disease-specific evidence and professional best practices to inform self-management interventions. This procedure might be especially useful in cases of complex chronic health conditions, as every recommendation in these cases needs to be evaluated and considered in light of all other self-management requirements. Hence, the agreement of experts and affected individuals is essential to ensure the selection of evidence-based content that is considered to be relevant and applicable.

Epilepsy deaths: Learning from health service delivery and trying to reduce risk

Two recent UK reports have highlighted data of concern in relation to potentially preventable epilepsy deaths. Public Health England, an executive agency of the Government Department of Health, using National Health Service data from 2001 to 2014 reported a rise in direct age-standardised mortality for epilepsy-associated deaths, in contrast to a reduction in all-cause deaths over the same period. Premature death was seen in people aged below 50 years, especially in men, and where epilepsy was a contributory cause rather than an association. The Scottish Epilepsy Deaths Study, analysing deaths between 2009 and 2016, similarly found death in those with epilepsy was significantly higher than the matched population below the age of 54, especially between the ages of 16 and 24 (6 times higher). Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy accounted for 38% of epilepsy-related deaths under the age of 45. Both studies found a strong relationship between risk of death and deprivation; we discuss the implications of these and other data for planning service delivery and improving epilepsy care. This paper is for the Special Issue: Prevent 21: SUDEP Summit - Time to Listen.

Bridging the gap of risk communication and management using the SUDEP and Seizure Safety Checklist

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is a tragic condition and, despite varied risk levels among the population with epilepsy, is the cause of significant premature mortality. In the last 20 years, though awareness of SUDEP has increased among epilepsy professionals, little has changed with regard to the death rates per se, in rates of informing people with epilepsy (PWE) of their person-centered SUDEP risks, or in the awareness levels of nonepilepsy clinicians, such as, primary care practitioners and hospital doctors. The challenges to make aware and inform PWE have been multifold, in particular, 'when', 'what', and 'how' to tell about SUDEP. Current guidance recognizes that to improve SUDEP rates, it is important to engage proactively with PWE. There is a need to bring shared responsibility between clinicians and PWE to help mitigate the risk of SUDEP. To enable this, a meaningful evidence-based person-centered conversation is essential. The SUDEP and Seizure Safety Checklist ("Checklist") was created to facilitate this. This paper showcases the background, concept, development, implementation, feasibility and validity studies undertaken, challenges, barriers, and limitations of the eight-year Checklist project, which has moved from a single clinic to an international presence. It outlines the need to further reform SUDEP risk communication recognizing the differences between a basic risk message at time of diagnosis as advocated by current good practice guidance and the need for a more person-centered discussion on a regular basis for which the Checklist can be a key catalyst. This article is part of the Special Issue "Prevent 21: SUDEP Summit - Time to Listen".

Improving epilepsy management with EpSMon: A Templar to highlight the multifaceted challenges of incorporating digital technologies into routine clinical practice

The digital epilepsy self-monitor (EpSMon) app was developed to address the challenge of improving risk education and management in the UK. The tool, which has emerged out of quality improvement methodology, demonstrates efficacy and has been met with peer-reviewed support and international awards. The focus of this paper is about the development and integration into care of a digital self-assessment epilepsy risk empowerment tool into the UK health system. This paper provides detail into the specific challenges of incorporating a digital epilepsy intervention into routine clinical practice. Despite a strong narrative and evidence, the engagement of commissioners, clinicians, and people with epilepsy is slow. A breakdown of the strategies used, the current governance landscape, and emerging opportunities to develop an informed implementation strategy is provided to support others who seek to create impact with digital solutions for people with epilepsy. This paper is for the Special Issue: Prevent 21: SUDEP Summit - Time to Listen".

Caring electronically for young outpatients who have epilepsy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to review electronic tools that might improve the delivery of epilepsy care, reduce medical care costs, and empower families to improve self-management capability.

METHOD

We reviewed the epilepsy-specific literature about self-management, electronic patient-reported or provider-reported outcomes, on-going remote surveillance, and alerting/warning systems.

CONCLUSIONS

The improved care delivery system that we envision includes self-management, electronic patient (or provider)-reported outcomes, on-going remote surveillance, and alerting/warning systems. This system and variants have the potential to reduce seizure burden through improved management, keep children out of the emergency department and hospital, and even reduce the number of outpatient visits.

Digital Care in Epilepsy: A Conceptual Framework for Technological Therapies

Epilepsy is associated with a significant increase in morbidity and mortality. The likelihood is significantly greater for those patients with specific risk factors. Identifying those at greatest risk of injury and providing expert management from the earliest opportunity is made more challenging by the circumstances in which many such patients present. Despite increasing recognition of the importance of earlier identification of those at risk, there is little or no improvement in outcomes over more than 30 years. Despite ever increasing sophistication of drug development and delivery, there has been no meaningful improvement in 1-year seizure freedom rates over this time. However, in the last few years, there has been an increase in patient-triggered interventions based on automated monitoring of indicators and risk factors facilitated by technological advances. The opportunities such approaches provide will only be realized if accompanied by current working practice changes. Replacing traditional follow-up appointments at arbitrary intervals with dynamic interventions, remotely and at the point and place of need provides a better chance of a substantial reduction in seizures for people with epilepsy. Properly implemented, electronic platforms can offer new opportunities to provide expert advice and management from first presentation thus improving outcomes. This perspective paper provides and proposes an informed critical opinion built on current evidence base of an outline techno-therapeutic approach to harnesses these technologies. This conceptual framework is generic, rather than tied to a specific product or solution, and the same generalized approach could be beneficially applied to other long-term conditions.

Identifying and mitigating Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) risk factors

INTRODUCTION

Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) is a significant cause of death for people with chronic epilepsy. Good practice guidance in the UK and the USA expect SUDEP to be discussed with the individual. The event rarity, methodological variance and lack of robust research into the pathological mechanisms, associated risk factors, and management strategies have created a challenge on how and what to discuss. There are some significant associations which allows for risk assessment and mitigation. Areas covered: The current understanding of static and modifiable risk factors for SUDEP and how to manage these more effectively are reviewed. Longitudinal risk may be assessed using standardised risk assessment tools which help in communicating risk. Technological advancement allows measurement of physiological parameters associated with seizures and risk of SUDEP using small wearable devices. Further evidence is needed to demonstrate such technologies are efficacious and safe. Expert commentary: Risk reduction should be an important part of epilepsy management and we suggest a Gold Standard of Care which healthcare professionals and services should aim for when approaching SUDEP risk management. A Minimum Standard of Care is also proposed that is practical to implement, that all people with epilepsy should expect to receive.

Development of the Epilepsy Risk Awareness scale (ERA scale) for people with epilepsy

PURPOSE

Quality of life in people with epilepsy depends on balancing protection from risks and avoiding unnecessary restrictions. The Epilepsy Risk Awareness Checklist (ERAC) was developed to summarise an individual's safety, health care and quality of life and to facilitate communication between professionals. Although effective, the existing Checklist required quantification and shortening to increase its utility, particularly as a longitudinal tool for measuring and communicating changes over time.

METHODS

5 clinical experts, 3 people with epilepsy and 5 carers assessed the importance of each item on the ERAC questionnaire in a two-round Delphi survey. The refined Epilepsy Risk Awareness scale (ERA scale) was piloted in 30 patients to obtain an overall and sub-scale score for personal safety, health care, and quality of life domains, and was compared with the validated Seizure Severity Scale and Epilepsy Self-Management Scale.

RESULTS

ERAC was shortened from 69 to 48 items to take 15-20min for completion. Pilot results showed good internal consistency for the overall ERA scale, for the Personal Safety and Health Care subscales, but less for the Quality of Life subscale. There was strong association between ERA scale and the Epilepsy Self-Management Scale, but little relationship with Seizure Severity Scale scores, which focus on individual seizures. User ratings were high.

CONCLUSIONS

The ERA scale has been shortened and quantified to provide an objective measure of the risks and safety profile in people with epilepsy. The scale will be further tested for intra-rater variability and utility.