Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Patient-reported outcomes measurements in epilepsy

Authors: Sonia Gavriel; Megan Stafford; Andrew Lloyd;

Patient-reported outcomes measurements in epilepsy

Abstract

This review was designed to explore and review the range of patient-reported outcomes used to assess people with epilepsy. Literature searches were conducted through EMBASE.com and supplemented with hand searching of relevant articles. References obtained through hand searches were compared with EMBASE.com citations until we were confident that the review had reached a point of saturation. The search included English language papers published between January 1997 and March 2007. Searching through EMBASE.com yielded a total of 110 hits and the hand searches identified 35 potentially relevant studies. A total of 61 studies were considered relevant to the current review and were included in the study. Several instruments that have been designed and validated to measure patient-reported outcomes in an epilepsy population are currently being used, including the Quality of Life in Epilepsy (QOLIE)-89 and -31, the Liverpool Seizure Severity Scale and the Washington Psychosocial Seizure Inventory. In addition, the QOLIE-adolescent (QOLIE-AD)-48 and the Adolescent Psychosocial Seizure Inventory have been designed for use with adolescent epileptic patients. We found a paucity of valid condition-specific instruments assessing patient preference and patient satisfaction in this population. Several condition-specific instruments exist to measure patient-reported outcomes in epilepsy, specifically in the areas of health-related quality of life, patient-reported symptoms and psychosocial functioning. However, measures designed to assess other areas of patient-reported outcomes, such as patient preference and satisfaction, are poorly developed.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    12
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
12
Top 10%
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author? Do you have the OA version of this publication?