Search

Objective: We investigated the efficacy of epilepsy nurses on satisfaction with counseling about epilepsy in a randomized, controlled, prospective trial. Methods: Patients with epilepsy treated by neurologists in outpatient clinics were consecutively enrolled and randomly allocated to either the epilepsy nurse (EN) group (n = 92) or the control group (n = 95). Patients in the EN group were advised according to their needs by epilepsy nurses. The control group received routine care without additional counseling. The EN group completed the questionnaires before the first consultation (T1) and 6 months later (T2); the control group completed the questionnaires twice with an interval of 6 months. Primary outcome measure was satisfaction of patients with information and support. Secondary outcome measures were satisfaction with patient-doctor relationship, organization of treatment, epilepsy knowledge, coping, and restrictions in daily life. Anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and global Quality of Life (item from QOLIE-31) were also assessed. Statistical analysis included generalized estimating equation (GEE) and nonparametric tests. Results: Satisfaction with information and support improved significantly in the EN group compared to the control group (GEE, interaction group 3 time, p = 0.001). In addition, Epilepsy Knowledge (p = 0.014) and Coping (subscale Information Seeking) (p = 0.023) improved. Increase in satisfaction with counseling was dependent on patients' needs for information and on the amount of received information (Jonckheere-Terpstra test, p < 0.001). No differences between the groups were observed on other epilepsy-specific scales. Significance: A reliable questionnaire for satisfaction with epilepsy care has been developed. Epilepsy nurses improve the satisfaction of patients with counseling and information about epilepsy and concomitant problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of the e-learning course “Genetics of Epilepsies” and to assess the experiences of the participants and e-moderators with this new approach. Methods: Prospective, controlled study with waiting group (control group, n = 18) and e-learning group (n = 20). The control group got the same reference literature list as the e-learning group. Both groups were assessed twice: The e-learning group before and after the course; the control group was assessed at the same times. Primary outcome measure: increase in knowledge about genetics of epilepsies using questionnaires based on items formulated by experts (internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha = 0.86). Main hypothesis: greater increase of knowledge in the e-learning group compared to control group. Secondary outcome measures: assessment of the educational course and learning environment by participants and by tutors/e-moderators. Results: Significant time × group interaction and group effect (ANOVA, each p < 0.01) with regard to knowledge. At baseline, the groups did not differ with respect to knowledge about genetics of epilepsy. In contrast to the control group, the increase of knowledge in the e-learning group was highly significant (p < 0.001). The majority of the participants of the e-learning course was content with their personal learning process (75% agree, 15% strongly agree). Most of them reported a gain in competence in the treatment and counseling of people with epilepsy (38.9% agree, 50% strongly agree). All participants would recommend this course to others and all but one participant are interested in other e-learning courses. Conclusion: The study indicates e-learning courses are an appropriate tool to improve knowledge of physicians in genetics of epilepsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of the educational program MOSES (Modular Service Package Epilepsy). It was developed to improve patients' knowledge and understanding about their epilepsy, its treatment, and psychosocial consequences. The program intends to improve patients' coping with the disease, to strengthen self-esteem, and to support patients to become experts in managing their epilepsy. Methods: A controlled, randomized study design was used to examine the efficacy of MOSES. Patients from 22 epilepsy centers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland were randomly allocated to either MOSES group (treatment group) or waiting-list group (control group). The 242 patients were aged from 16 to 80 years. The MOSES group (n = 113) completed the questionnaires immediately before the educational course (T1) and 6 months later (T2), and the control group (n = 129), 6 months before (T1) and immediately before (T2) the course. The questionnaires included generic instruments (SF-36, Rosenberg self-esteem Scale, von Zerssen Depression Scale), and epilepsy-specific scales (Restrictions in Daily Life, Epilepsy-Related Fears, Coping with Epilepsy and Adaptation). Depression was used as a moderator variable. Seizure frequency and satisfaction with therapy also were assessed. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with repeated measurements and univariate analyses of variance were performed. Results: The MANOVA showed that participants of the educational program improved significantly. Univariate analyses revealed improvements in knowledge (p < 0.001) and coping with epilepsy (p = 0.004), whereas important effects of MOSES on other epilepsy-specific measures and on generic questionnaires (SF-36, self-esteem) were not found. Participants of the MOSES program also improved in seizure outcome (p = 0.041) and became more satisfied with the therapy [better tolerability of antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy, fewer side effects; p = 0.014]. In addition, participants... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Purpose: To estimate the incidence rate of epilepsies and epileptic syndromes in German children and adolescents aged 1 month to <15 years, and to provide data on their classification. Methods: A population-based prospective study was performed between July 1, 1999, and June 30, 2000. All children aged 1 month to <15 years with a newly diagnosed epilepsy or epileptic syndrome were recorded by private pediatricians, EEG laboratories, and the two University Children's Hospitals in the neighboring cities of Heidelberg and Mannheim. The diagnoses were classified according to the International Classification of Epilepsies and Epileptic Syndromes of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE). Results: The total age-adjusted annual incidence rate was 60/100,000 (95% confidence interval, 42–84), with the highest incidence in the first year of life (146/100,000). Focal epilepsies or epileptic syndromes (58%; incidence rate, 35/100,000) were more common than were generalized ones (39%; incidence rate, 24/100,000), and 3% (incidence rate, 2/100,000) of the epilepsies or epileptic syndromes were undetermined. The rate of idiopathic (47%; incidence rate, 29/100,000) and symptomatic or cryptogenic epilepsies (50%; incidence rate, 30/100,000) was equal. No significant difference in incidence between boys and girls was found. Conclusions: Incidence rates for epilepsy in German children aged 1 month to <15 years are about equal to those of other countries in Europe and North America. In accordance with studies from the United States and from many European countries, incidence was highest in the first year of life, and no difference in the incidence between girls and boys was found. In Germany as throughout Europe, idiopathic generalized epileptic syndromes are more often diagnosed than in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To examine the attitudes toward counseling about sudden unexpected death in epilepsy ( SUDEP) and other epilepsy risk factors among Austrian, German, and Swiss neurologists and neuropediatricians, and to determine factors associated with not discussing SUDEP. Methods Questionnaires were sent to approximately 5,000 neurologists and neuropediatricians in 2014 regarding respondents' demographics, their working environments, and how often they discussed SUDEP, suicidal ideations on anticonvulsive medication, driving restrictions, and risks in daily life activities. Results In total, 519 surveys were completed (respondents' mean age: 45.5 years, 41.6% female, 66.9% adult neurologists, 31.0% neuropediatricians). A minority of 2.7% reported that they counseled all of their patients on SUDEP, 8.7% counseled most of the time (50-90%), 20.8% sometimes (10-49%), 44.5% rarely (1-9%), and 23.3% reported not counseling about SUDEP at all. In contrast, 92.9% reported that they counseled all patients about driving restrictions and 81.5% about risks in daily life activities. Suicidal ideations were discussed in 59.0% for some and in 3.3% for all patients, whereas 35.1% of respondents reported never discussing suicidal ideations. Independent predictors of not discussing SUDEP were no additional epilepsy training, no or uncertain SUDEP cases in the past, <10 years in practice, <25 epilepsy patients seen per quarter, and the opinion of a lack of consequences in SUDEP prevention. The opinion that SUDEP is a risk factor in particular patient groups and the attitude that all risks should be discussed predicted counseling on SUDEP. Significance Our findings show a discrepancy between guidelines and practice regarding the discussion of premature mortality due to SUDEP or suicidality. Both are not discussed at all by a substantial proportion of neurologists and neuropediatricians. This is in contrast to ubiquitous education about driving restrictions. Dissemination of knowledge among physicians about potential preventive strategies might increase the likelihood of discussion. Clinical practice guidelines are welcomed by the majority of physicians in this process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]