| Literature DB >> 29063412 |
Mohamed A Elhassan1, Amr A Alemairy2, Zeinab M Amara1, Abdrahman A Hamadelneel3, Abbasher H Mohamed4, Ahmed A Elaimeri5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is a continuing tendency to have seizures, i.e., a convulsion or any transient abnormal event resulting from paroxysmal cerebral neurons discharge, even if the attacks are separated by long intervals. Eighty-nine percent of the global burden of epilepsy is in developing countries. Knowledge about the disease is the cornerstone for its treatment and prevention.Entities:
Keywords: Attitude; Epilepsy; Knowledge; Practice; Seizure; Teachers
Year: 2017 PMID: 29063412 PMCID: PMC5700905 DOI: 10.1007/s40120-017-0083-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neurol Ther ISSN: 2193-6536
Sociodemographic characteristics of participants (n = 317)
| Sociodemographic characteristic | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | ||
| 15–30 | 26 | 8.2 |
| 31–45 | 75 | 23.7 |
| 46–60 | 113 | 35.6 |
| ≥ 61 | 103 | 32.5 |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 167 | 52.7 |
| Female | 150 | 47.3 |
| Educational level | ||
| Secondary school | 8 | 2.5 |
| Graduate | 163 | 51.4 |
| Postgraduate | 125 | 39.4 |
| Non-response | 21 | 6.6 |
| Experience in teaching | ||
| 0–10 | 85 | 26.8 |
| 11–20 | 118 | 37.2 |
| 21–30 | 87 | 27.4 |
| ≥ 31 | 27 | 8.5 |
Fig. 1Teachers’ knowledge about the etiology of epilepsy (n = 317)
Knowledge score and teachers’ gender (n = 317)
| Gender | Knowledge score | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extremely poor | Poor | Intermediate | Good | Optimum | ||
| Male | 6 (1.6%) | 24 (7.6%) | 48 (15.1%) | 72 (22.7%) | 17 (5.4%) | 167 (52.7%) |
| Female | 6 (1.6%) | 38 (12.0%) | 50 (15.8%) | 56 (17.7%) | 0 (0%) | 150 (47.3%) |
| Total | 12 (3.8%) | 62 (19.6%) | 98 (30.9%) | 128 (40.4%) | 17 (5.4%) | 317 (100%) |
P = 0.00
Knowledge score and teachers’ age ranges (n = 317)
| Age | Knowledge score | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extremely poor | Poor | Intermediate | Good | Optimum | ||
| 15–30 | 0 (0%) | 9 (2.8%) | 9 (2.8%) | 8 (2.5%) | 0 (0%) | 26 (8.2%) |
| 31–45 | 0 (0%) | 15 (4.7%) | 27 (8.5%) | 30 (9.5%) | 3 (0.9%) | 75 (23.7%) |
| 46–60 | 3 (0.9%) | 21 (6.6%) | 30 (9.5%) | 53 (16.7%) | 6 (1.9%) | 113 (35.6%) |
| > 60 | 9 (2.8%) | 17 (5.4%) | 32 (10.1%) | 37 (11.7%) | 8 (2.5%) | 103 (32.5%) |
| Total | 12 (3.8%) | 62 (19.6%) | 98 (30.9%) | 128 (40.4%) | 17 (5.4%) | 317 (100%) |
P = 0.09
Knowledge score and teachers’ educational levels (n = 296)
| Educational level | Knowledge score | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extremely poor | Poor | Intermediate | Good | Optimum | ||
| Secondary school | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (1.0%) | 5 (1.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 8 (2.7%) |
| Graduate | 3 (1.0%) | 32 (10.8%) | 53 (17.9%) | 61 (20.6%) | 14 (4.7%) | 163 (55.1%) |
| Postgraduate | 6 (2.0%) | 27 (9.1%) | 33 (11.1%) | 59 (19.9%) | 0 (0%) | 125 (42.2%) |
| Total | 9 (3.0%) | 59 (19.9%) | 89 (30.1%) | 125 (42.2%) | 14 (4.7%) | 296 (100%) |
P = 0.01
Knowledge score and teachers’ teaching experience (n = 317)
| Teaching experience | Knowledge score | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extremely poor | Poor | Intermediate | Good | Optimum | ||
| 0–10 | 0 (0%) | 12 (3.8%) | 42 (13.2%) | 31 (9.8%) | 0 (0%) | 85 (26.8%) |
| 11–20 | 3 (0.9%) | 27 (8.5%) | 26 (8.2%) | 53 (16.7%) | 9 (2.8%) | 118 (37.2%) |
| 31–40 | 6 (1.9%) | 11 (3.5%) | 27 (8.5%) | 38 (12.0%) | 5 (1.6%) | 87 (27.4%) |
| > 40 | 3 (0.9%) | 12 (3.8%) | 3 (0.9%) | 6 (1.9%) | 3 (0.9%) | 27 (8.5%) |
| Total | 12 (3.8%) | 62 (19.6%) | 98 (30.9%) | 128 (40.4%) | 17 (5.4%) | 317 (100%) |
P = 0.00
Attitude score and teachers’ gender (n = 317)
| Gender | Attitude score | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bad | Intermediate | Good | ||
| Male | 54 (17.0%) | 58 (18.3%) | 55 (17.4%) | 167 (52.7%) |
| Female | 80 (25.2%) | 43 (13.6%) | 27 (8.5%) | 150 (47.3%) |
| Total | 134 (42.3%) | 101 (31.9%) | 82 (25.9%) | 317 (100%) |
P = 0.00
Attitude score and teachers’ age ranges (n = 317)
| Age | Attitude score | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bad | Intermediate | Good | ||
| 15–30 | 14 (4.4%) | 3 (0.9%) | 9 (2.8%) | 26 (8.2%) |
| 31–45 | 27 (8.5%) | 33 (10.4%) | 15 (4.7%) | 75 (23.7%) |
| 46–60 | 48 (15.1%) | 26 (8.2%) | 39 (12.3%) | 113 (35.6%) |
| > 60 | 45 (14.2%) | 39 (12.3%) | 19 (6.0%) | 103 (32.5%) |
| Total | 134 (42.3%) | 101 (31.9%) | 82 (25.9%) | 317 (100%) |
P = 0.03
Attitude score and teachers’ educational levels (n = 296)
| Educational level | Attitude score | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bad | Intermediate | Good | ||
| Secondary school | 3 (1.0%) | 3 (1.0%) | 2 (0.7%) | 8 (2.7%) |
| Graduate | 60 (20.3%) | 59 (19.9%) | 44 (14.9%) | 163 (55.1%) |
| Postgraduate | 59 (19.9%) | 36 (12.2%) | 30 (10.1%) | 125 (42.2%) |
| Total | 122 (41.2%) | 98 (33.1%) | 76 (25.7%) | 296 (100%) |
P = 0.49
Attitude score and teachers’ teaching experience (n = 317)
| Teaching experience | Attitude score | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bad | Intermediate | Good | ||
| 0–10 | 29 (9.1%) | 30 (9.5%) | 26 (8.2%) | 85 (26.8%) |
| 11–20 | 51 (16.1%) | 43 (13.6%) | 24 (7.6%) | 118 (37.2%) |
| 31–40 | 39 (12.3%) | 22 (6.9%) | 26 (8.2%) | 87 (27.4%) |
| > 40 | 15 (4.7%) | 6 (1.6%) | 6 (1.6%) | 27 (8.5%) |
| Total | 134 (42.3%) | 101 (31.9%) | 82 (25.9%) | 317 (100%) |
P = 0.20
Practice score and teachers’ gender (n = 317)
| Gender | Practice score | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extremely inadequate | Inadequate | Intermediate | Good | Optimum | ||
| Male | 39 (12.3%) | 35 (11.0%) | 38 (12.0%) | 49 (15.5%) | 6 (1.9%) | 167 (52.7%) |
| Female | 30 (9.5%) | 17 (5.4%) | 29 (9.1%) | 62 (19.6%) | 12 (3.8%) | 150 (47.3%) |
| Total | 69 (21.8%) | 52 (16.4%) | 67 (21.1%) | 111 (35.0%) | 18 (5.7%) | 317 (100%) |
P = 0.02
Practice score and teachers’ age ranges (n = 317)
| Age | Practice score | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extremely inadequate | Inadequate | Intermediate | Good | Optimum | ||
| 15–30 | 2 (0.6%) | 3 (0.9%) | 3 (0.9%) | 12 (3.8%) | 6 (1.9%) | 26 (8.2%) |
| 31–45 | 15 (4.7%) | 15 (4.7%) | 12 (3.8%) | 30 (9.5%) | 3 (0.9%) | 75 (23.7%) |
| 46–60 | 30 (9.5%) | 15 (4.7%) | 24 (7.6%) | 38 (12.0%) | 6 (1.9%) | 113 (35.6%) |
| > 60 | 22 (6.9%) | 19 (6.0%) | 28 (8.8%) | 31 (9.8%) | 3 (0.9%) | 103 (32.5%) |
| Total | 69 (21.8%) | 52 (16.4%) | 67 (21.1%) | 111 (35.0%) | 18 (5.7%) | 317 (100%) |
P = 0.01
Practice score and teachers’ educational levels (n = 296)
| Education level | Practice score | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extremely inadequate | Inadequate | Intermediate | Good | Optimum | ||
| Secondary school | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (1.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (1.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 8 (2.7%) |
| Graduate | 22 (7.4%) | 31 (10.5%) | 37 (12.5%) | 64 (21.6%) | 9 (3.0%) | 163 (55.1%) |
| Postgraduate | 44 (14.9%) | 12 (4.1%) | 27 (9.1%) | 36 (12.2%) | 6 (2.0%) | 125 (42.2%) |
| Total | 66 (22.3%) | 46 (15.5%) | 64 (21.6%) | 105 (35.5%) | 15 (5.1%) | 296 (100%) |
P = 0.00
Practice score and teachers’ teaching experience (n = 317)
| Teaching experience | Practice score | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extremely inadequate | Inadequate | Intermediate | Good | Optimum | ||
| 0–10 | 17 (5.4%) | 12 (3.8%) | 9 (2.8%) | 38 (12.0%) | 9 (2.8%) | 85 (26.8%) |
| 11–20 | 21 (6.6%) | 26 (8.2%) | 18 (5.7%) | 50 (15.8%) | 3 (0.9%) | 118 (37.2%) |
| 31–40 | 22 (6.9%) | 11 (3.5%) | 31 (9.8%) | 17 (5.4%) | 6 (1.9%) | 87 (27.4%) |
| > 40 | 9 (2.8%) | 3 (0.9%) | 9 (2.8%) | 6 (1.9%) | 0 (0.0%) | 27 (8.5%) |
| Total | 69 (21.8%) | 52 (16.4%) | 67 (21.1%) | 111 (35.0%) | 18 (5.7%) | 317 (100%) |
P = 0.00