METHODS: Participants answered a needs assessment questionnaire eliciting information about their illness perception (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (Brief-IPQ)), emotions (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)), willingness to participate in psychological interventions, preferences in types of PPI and intervention designs, as well as barriers in seeking mental health services.
RESULTS: A total of 154 patients with epilepsy participated, with a mean age of 37.3years (range 16-86years). Most patients had focal epilepsy (68.2%), and drug-resistant (59.1%). Majority (71.4%) of them indicated a strong willingness to participate in PPI. Out of nine types of PPI, character strengths, mindfulness-based and expressive-based interventions were highly preferred. Those with negative illness perception (p=0.001), anxiety (p=0.004), and being unemployed (p=0.048) were more willing to participate in PPI. Most participants preferred group rather than individual session, and a shorter duration (30min) was favored by most.
CONCLUSION: This study captured the self-report willingness to participate in psychological interventions. Findings suggested that psychological interventions delivered in short-group session were highly preferred. Future study is required to determine the feasibility of such design for patients with epilepsy.
METHODS: Previous studies relevant to this topic were identified by searches in PUBMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PSYCINFO databases from Jan 1980 to August 2017.
RESULTS: Of 1361 articles identified, 31 studies were included. Nineteen studies were randomized controlled trials. Sixteen studies had sample sizes of less than 30. Twelve studies were rated as high quality using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) quality assessment tools. Six therapies were found: mindfulness-based approaches, positive savoring, life summary, expressive-based, hope-based interventions, and character strengths. These interventions were shown to improve quality of life, reduce symptomatic distress, and depressive symptoms.
CONCLUSION: PPIs promote well-being among patients with neurological deficits. For PPIs to be considered as an evidence-based practice, more trials with adequate statistical power are required.
METHODS: The scale was translated following the standard procedures. For psychometric validation, the Turkish version of the PATE scale was administered to 201 native Turkish speakers above the age of 18 who had no history of seizures or epilepsy. It was found that the respondents were able to fill out the scale quickly and without difficulty in understanding the translated items on the scale.
RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha coefficient was found to be 0.843 for the overall scale and above 0.7 for each individual item. Cronbach's alpha was 0.78 for the general domain and 0.792 for the personal domain. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were carried out and showed that the scale had a structure similar to that of the original scale, with the 14 items grouped under two dimensions, similar to the original scale.
CONCLUSION: The Turkish version of the PATE scale was a valid and reliable tool to measure the attitudes toward epilepsy in Turkish society.
METHODS: A total of 28 PWE were randomly assigned to either intervention (n = 14 cases) or control group (n = 14 controls). The intervention group received a six 2.5-hour weekly MBI, while the control group did not receive any intervention. They were assessed at three timepoints (T0: before intervention, T1: immediately after intervention, and T2: 6 weeks after intervention). Repeated measures of analyses of variance (RM-ANOVAs) were used for inter-group comparisons to determine intervention effect from baseline -to T1 and -to T2 for all outcome measures. The individual changes were calculated using the reliable change index (RCI). Key outcomes included depression (BDI-II), anxiety (BAI), epilepsy-related quality of life (QOLIE-31), satisfaction with life (SWLS), and level of mindfulness (MAAS).
RESULTS: Participants who participated in the MBI showed significant reduction in BDI-II (p = 0.001), significant increases in MAAS (p = 0.027) and QOLIE-31 (p = 0.001) at T1 when compared with the control group. However, BAI and SWLS were not significant. The trend was similar at 6-week follow-up, all outcome measures of MBI remained significant (p
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to review all freely available apps related to the SM of PWEs and to determine the SM domains covered in these apps.
METHODS: We performed a search of apps on Google Play and App Store using the keywords "epilepsy" or "seizures" from May to August 2018. Apps were included if they were free and in English language. We excluded apps with installation-related issues and not related to epilepsy self-management (eSM).
RESULTS: A total of 22 eSM apps were identified in our search: 6 of these run only on iOS, 7 only on Android, and 9 run on both operating systems. Of the 11 domains of SM, seizure tracking and seizure response features were covered by most apps (n=22 and n=19, respectively), followed by treatment management (n=17) and medication adherence (n=15). Three apps (Epilepsy Journal, Epilepsy Tool Kit, and EpiDiary) were installed more than 10,000 times, with features focused specifically on a few domains (treatment management, medication adherence, health care communication, and seizure tracking). Two apps (Young Epilepsy and E-Epilepsy Inclusion) covered more than 6 SM domains but both had lower installation rates (5000+ and 100+, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Both Android and iOS mHealth apps are available to improve SM in epilepsy, but the installation rate of most apps remains low. The SM features of these apps were different from one another, making it difficult to recommend a single app that completely fulfills the needs of PWEs. The common features of the apps evaluated included seizure tracking and seizure response. To improve the efficacy and availability of these apps, we propose the following: (1) involve the stakeholders, such as physicians, pharmacists, and PWEs, during the development of mHealth apps; (2) assess the efficacy and acceptance of the apps objectively by performing a usability analysis; and (3) promote the apps so that they benefit more PWEs.