Fiona M Corrigan1, Helen Broome2, Liam Dorris3. 1. Institute of Mental Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 OXH, Scotland, UK. 2. Institute of Mental Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 OXH, Scotland, UK; Paediatric Neurosciences Research Group, Royal Hospital for Children, Glasgow G51 4TF, Scotland, UK. 3. Institute of Mental Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 OXH, Scotland, UK; Paediatric Neurosciences Research Group, Royal Hospital for Children, Glasgow G51 4TF, Scotland, UK. Electronic address: liam.dorris@ggc.scot.nhs.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite recognition that psychosocial interventions can improve quality of life and mental health, there continues to be a lack of clarity and guidance around effective psychosocial interventions for children and young people with epilepsy. This review utilizes specific quality criteria to systematically identify and appraise the evidence for the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for children and young people with epilepsy. METHODS: A systematic search of six electronic databases was conducted using predefined eligibility criteria. The reference lists of previous review papers were also manually searched. Seventeen studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A quality appraisal checklist, the 'Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool' (CCAT) (Crowe, 2013) [1] was applied to the included articles, and effect sizes were calculated when not provided in the papers. RESULTS: Methodological quality of the majority of studies included was moderate, with only three studies rated as high quality. Meta-analysis was not conducted as the studies used heterogeneous methodologies and lacked consistency in outcome measures. Limited evidence was found for interventions improving epilepsy knowledge, quality of life, and psychological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial interventions may provide clinical benefit although further research is needed to clarify the most effective treatment components, delivery methods, and measurement of intervention outcomes. The existing evidence base for children and young people is limited by methodological issues such as the use of small samples, inadequate power, and a lack of controlled studies.
BACKGROUND: Despite recognition that psychosocial interventions can improve quality of life and mental health, there continues to be a lack of clarity and guidance around effective psychosocial interventions for children and young people with epilepsy. This review utilizes specific quality criteria to systematically identify and appraise the evidence for the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for children and young people with epilepsy. METHODS: A systematic search of six electronic databases was conducted using predefined eligibility criteria. The reference lists of previous review papers were also manually searched. Seventeen studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A quality appraisal checklist, the 'Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool' (CCAT) (Crowe, 2013) [1] was applied to the included articles, and effect sizes were calculated when not provided in the papers. RESULTS: Methodological quality of the majority of studies included was moderate, with only three studies rated as high quality. Meta-analysis was not conducted as the studies used heterogeneous methodologies and lacked consistency in outcome measures. Limited evidence was found for interventions improving epilepsy knowledge, quality of life, and psychological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Psychosocial interventions may provide clinical benefit although further research is needed to clarify the most effective treatment components, delivery methods, and measurement of intervention outcomes. The existing evidence base for children and young people is limited by methodological issues such as the use of small samples, inadequate power, and a lack of controlled studies.
Authors: Hongxia Shen; Rianne M J J van der Kleij; Paul J M van der Boog; Xinwei Chang; Niels H Chavannes Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jasmeet Singh; Maria Karanika-Murray; Thom Baguley; John Hudson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 3.390