METHODS: This prospective study includes parents of CWE aged 8-18 years old with no comorbidities. Epilepsy education was delivered using the IAEEP. Parents completed an AKA questionnaire before (time point 1 [TP1]), immediately after (TP2), and 4-6 months (TP3) after the provision of IAEEP. Parent proxy report of Health-Related Quality of Life Measurement for Children with Epilepsy (CHEQOL)-25 questionnaire and Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS)-21 questionnaire was completed at TP1 and TP3.
RESULTS: A total of 78 parents participated in the study. At baseline (TP1), parental responses were rated as "moderate" for awareness domain, "high" for knowledge domain, "very positive" for attitude domain, and "good" for total AKA score domain. No epilepsy or parental characteristics were associated with the low baseline parental AKA levels. After IAEEP intervention, there was a significant increase in all AKA subdomain scores. Post-IAEEP, the AKA of parents were rated as "very high" for awareness domain, "very high" for knowledge domain, "very positive" for attitude domain, and "excellent" for total AKA domain at both TP2 and TP3. Parent proxy CHEQOL-25 report showed significant increments in interpersonal/social and secrecy scale scores between TP1 and TP3. There were no significant differences in the DASS-21 scores between TP1 and TP3.
CONCLUSION: The IAEEP is an effective epilepsy educational tool to increase the levels of AKA among parents of CWE. Following the use of the IAEEP, parents of CWE also reported an improvement of their child's quality of life in the interpersonal/social and epilepsy secrecy CHEQOL-25 domains. There was no impact on parental mental health following exposure to the IAEEP.
Methods: An online questionnaire survey method was used. Based on sample size calculation, a total of 1,508 UiTM staff and students from ten selected campuses of Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) were invited to participate in this survey. An up-to-date e-mail list of staff in the selected campuses was used as the sampling frame for the study, whereas the students were recruited from the official university student Facebook portal.
Results: A total of 788 respondents participated in this survey, 72.2% of them knew about facial candling, though only 35.4% had tried the treatment. Approximately one-fifth of respondents agreed that facial candling might treat AR. It was found that a higher number of users than nonusers agreed that facial candling was a traditional medicine (78.9% vs 55.0%); could be used on the face and ears (83.5% vs 45.4%); and could be self-administered at home (83.5 vs 45.4%). Interestingly, more than half of them were uncertain about its long-term effects and adverse reactions.
Conclusion: This study confirms the facial candling use among patients with AR although the percentage is low. The patients and general public need to be better informed about the use of facial candling in AR and its associated risks.