Search

Objective: We aimed to assess the reliability and validity of single‐item global ratings (GR) of satisfaction with epilepsy surgery. Methods: We recruited 240 patients from four centers in Canada and Sweden who underwent epilepsy surgery ≥1 year earlier. Participants completed a validated questionnaire on satisfaction with epilepsy surgery (the ESSQ‐19), plus a single‐item GR of satisfaction with epilepsy surgery twice, 4–6 weeks apart. They also completed validated questionnaires on quality of life, depression, health state utilities, epilepsy severity and disability, medical treatment satisfaction and social desirability. Test‐retest reliability of the GR was assessed with the intra‐class correlation coefficient (ICC). Construct and criterion validity were examined with polyserial correlations between the GR measure of satisfaction and validated questionnaires and with the ESSQ‐19 summary score. Non‐parametric rank tests evaluated levels of satisfaction, and ROC analysis assessed the ability of GRs to distinguish among clinically different patient groups. Results: Median age and time since surgery were 42 years (IQR 32–54) and 5 years (IQR 2–8), respectively. The GR demonstrated good to excellent test‐retest reliability (ICC = 0.76; 95% CI 0.67–0.84) and criterion validity (0.85; 95% CI 0.81–0.89), and moderate correlations in the expected direction with instruments assessing quality of life (0.59; 95% CI 0.51–0.63), health utilities (0.55; 95% CI 0.45–0.65), disability (−0.51; 95% CI −0.41, −0.61), depression (−0.48; 95% CI −0.38, −0.58), and epilepsy severity (−0.48; 95% CI −0.38, −0.58). As expected, correlations were lower for social desirability (0.40; 95% CI 0.28–0.52) and medical treatment satisfaction (0.33; 95% CI 0.21–0.45). The GR distinguished participants who were seizure‐free (AUC 0.75; 95% CI 0.67–0.82), depressed (AUC 0.75; 95% CI 0.67–0.83), and self‐rated as having more severe epilepsy (AUC 0.78; 95% CI 0.71–0.85) and being more disabled (AUC 0.82; 95% CI 0.74–0.90). Significance: The GR of epilepsy surgery satisfaction showed good measurement properties, distinguished among clinically different patient groups, and appears well‐suited for use in clinical practice and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The 19‐item Epilepsy Surgery Satisfaction Questionnaire (ESSQ‐19) is a validated and reliable post hoc means of assessing patient satisfaction with epilepsy surgery. Prediction models building on these data can be used to counsel patients. Methods: The ESSQ‐19 was derived and validated on 229 patients recruited from Canada and Sweden. We isolated 201 (88%) patients with complete clinical data for this analysis. These patients were adults (≥18 years old) who underwent epilepsy surgery 1 year or more prior to answering the questionnaire. We extracted each patient's ESSQ‐19 score (scale is 0–100; 100 represents complete satisfaction) and relevant clinical variables that were standardized prior to the analysis. We used machine learning (linear kernel support vector regression [SVR]) to predict satisfaction and assessed performance using the R2 calculated following threefold cross‐validation. Model parameters were ranked to infer the importance of each clinical variable to overall satisfaction with epilepsy surgery. Results: Median age was 41 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 32–53), and 116 (57%) were female. Median ESSQ‐19 global score was 68 (IQR = 59–75), and median time from surgery was 5.4 years (IQR = 2.0–8.9). Linear kernel SVR performed well following threefold cross‐validation, with an R2 of.44 (95% confidence interval =.36–.52). Increasing satisfaction was associated with postoperative self‐perceived quality of life, seizure freedom, and reductions in antiseizure medications. Self‐perceived epilepsy disability, age, and increasing frequency of seizures that impair awareness were associated with reduced satisfaction. Significance: Machine learning applied postoperatively to the ESSQ‐19 can be used to predict surgical satisfaction. This algorithm, once externally validated, can be used in clinical settings by fixing immutable clinical characteristics and adjusting hypothesized postoperative variables, to counsel patients at an individual level on how satisfied they will be with differing surgical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: No validated tools exist to assess satisfaction with epilepsy surgery. We aimed to develop and validate a new measure of patient satisfaction with epilepsy surgery, the 19‐item Epilepsy Surgery Satisfaction Questionnaire (ESSQ‐19). Methods: An initial 31‐item measure was developed based on literature review, patient focus groups, thematic analysis, and Delphi panels. The questionnaire was administered twice, 4‐6 weeks apart, to 229 adults (≥18 years old) who underwent epilepsy surgery ≥1 year earlier, at three centers in Canada and one in Sweden. Participants also completed seven validated questionnaires to assess construct validity. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessed the factorial structure of the questionnaire. Cronbach alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) assessed the internal consistency and test‐retest reliability of the ESSQ‐19. Spearman and polyserial correlations assessed construct validity. Results: Median age of participants and time since surgery were 42 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 32‐54) and 5 years (IQR = 2‐8.75), respectively. EFA and CFA yielded 18 items that segregated into four domains (mean score [SD]), namely, seizure control (76.4 [25]), psychosocial functioning (67.3 [26]), surgical complications (84 [22]), and recovery from surgery (73 [24]), one global satisfaction item, and a summary global score (74 [21]). The domain and summary scores demonstrated good to excellent internal reliability (Cronbach ⍺ range =.84‐.95) and test‐retest reliability (ICC range = 0.71‐0.85). Construct validity was supported by predicted correlations with other instruments. Significance: The ESSQ‐19 is a new, valid, and reliable measure of patient satisfaction with epilepsy surgery that can be used in clinical and research settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]