1
|
Watkins LV, Ashby S, Hanna J, Henley W, Laugharne R, Shankar R. An evidence-based approach to provide essential and desirable components to develop surveys on Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) for doctors: A focused review. Seizure 2023; 106:14-21. [PMID: 36706666 DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2023.01.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2022] [Revised: 12/30/2022] [Accepted: 01/10/2023] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) is a major concern for people with epilepsy, their families, their care givers, and medical professionals. There is inconsistency in the SUDEP counselling doctors provide, compared to what is recommended in clinical guidelines. Numerous national and international surveys have highlighted how epilepsy professionals, usually doctors, deliver SUDEP risk counselling, particularly, when they deliver it and to whom. These surveys help understand the unmet need, develop suitable strategies, and raise awareness among clinicians with the eventual goal to reduce SUDEPs. However, there is no standardised survey or essential set of questions identified that can be used to evaluate SUDEP counselling practice globally. This focused review analyses the content of all published SUDEP counselling surveys for medical professionals (n=16) to date covering over 4000 doctors across over 30 countries and five continents. It identifies 36 question themes across three topics. The questions are then reviewed by an expert focus group of SUDEP communication experts including three doctors, an expert statistician and SUDEP Action, an UK based charity specialising in epilepsy deaths with a pre-set criterion. The review and focus group provide ten essential questions that should be included in all future surveys inquiring on SUDEP counselling. They could be used to evaluate current practice and compare findings over time, between services, across countries and between professional groups. They are provided as a template to download and use. The review also explores if there is a continued need in future for similar surveys to justify this activity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L V Watkins
- University of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK; Swansea Bay University Health Board, Port Talbot, UK
| | | | - J Hanna
- University of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK; Swansea Bay University Health Board, Port Talbot, UK; SUDEP Action, Wantage, UK; University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK; Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Highertown, Cornwall, UK; University of Plymouth Peninsula School of Medicine, Plymouth, UK; Cornwall Intellectual Disability Equitable Research (CIDER), Truro, UK
| | - W Henley
- University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
| | - R Laugharne
- Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Highertown, Cornwall, UK; University of Plymouth Peninsula School of Medicine, Plymouth, UK; Cornwall Intellectual Disability Equitable Research (CIDER), Truro, UK
| | - R Shankar
- Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Highertown, Cornwall, UK; University of Plymouth Peninsula School of Medicine, Plymouth, UK; Cornwall Intellectual Disability Equitable Research (CIDER), Truro, UK.
| |
Collapse
|