Nigel Fleeman1, Peter M Bradley. 1. Liverpool Reviews & Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, 2nd Floor, Sherrington Buildings, Ashton Street, Liverpool, UK, L69 3GE.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In response to criticism that epilepsy care for children has little impact, healthcare professionals and administrators have developed various service models and strategies to address perceived inadequacies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention for epilepsy versus usual care in children with epilepsy and in their families. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (27 September 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to 27 September 2016), Embase (1974 to 27 September 2016), PsycINFO (1887 to 27 September 2016) and CINAHL Plus (1937 to 27 September 2016). In addition, we also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing or recently completed trials, contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies or other prospective studies with a (matched or unmatched) control group (controlled before-and-after studies), or time series studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Our review included six interventions reported through seven studies (of which five studies were designed as RCTs). They reported on different education and counselling programmes for children and parents; teenagers and parents; or children, adolescents and their parents. Each programme showed some benefits for the well-being of children with epilepsy, but all had methodological flaws (e.g. in one of the studies designed as an RCT, randomisation failed), no single programme was independently evaluated with different study samples and no interventions were sufficiently homogeneous enough to be included in a meta-analysis,. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While each of the programmes in this review showed some benefit to children with epilepsy, their impacts were extremely variable. No programme showed benefits across the full range of outcomes, and all studies had major methodological problems. At present there is insufficient evidence in favour of any single programme.
BACKGROUND: In response to criticism that epilepsy care for children has little impact, healthcare professionals and administrators have developed various service models and strategies to address perceived inadequacies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention for epilepsy versus usual care in children with epilepsy and in their families. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (27 September 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to 27 September 2016), Embase (1974 to 27 September 2016), PsycINFO (1887 to 27 September 2016) and CINAHL Plus (1937 to 27 September 2016). In addition, we also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing or recently completed trials, contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies or other prospective studies with a (matched or unmatched) control group (controlled before-and-after studies), or time series studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Our review included six interventions reported through seven studies (of which five studies were designed as RCTs). They reported on different education and counselling programmes for children and parents; teenagers and parents; or children, adolescents and their parents. Each programme showed some benefits for the well-being of children with epilepsy, but all had methodological flaws (e.g. in one of the studies designed as an RCT, randomisation failed), no single programme was independently evaluated with different study samples and no interventions were sufficiently homogeneous enough to be included in a meta-analysis,. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While each of the programmes in this review showed some benefit to children with epilepsy, their impacts were extremely variable. No programme showed benefits across the full range of outcomes, and all studies had major methodological problems. At present there is insufficient evidence in favour of any single programme.
Authors: Kara Snead; Joseph Ackerson; Kirstin Bailey; Margaret M Schmitt; Avi Madan-Swain; Roy C Martin Journal: Epilepsy Behav Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 2.937
Authors: S Jantzen; E Müller-Godeffroy; T Hallfahrt-Krisl; F Aksu; B Püst; B Kohl; A Redlich; J Sperner; U Thyen Journal: Seizure Date: 2009-05-27 Impact factor: 3.184
Authors: Fredrick Ibinda; Caroline K Mbuba; Symon M Kariuki; Eddie Chengo; Anthony K Ngugi; Rachael Odhiambo; Brett Lowe; Greg Fegan; Julie A Carter; Charles R Newton Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 5.864