Quality of life during usual epilepsy care for anxiety or depression symptoms: Secondary patient-reported outcomes in a randomized trial of remote assessment methods
Heidi M. Munger Clary , Beverly M. Snively , Yaw Kumi-Ansu , Halley B. Alexander , James Kimball , Pamela Duncan , Kelly Conner , Jerryl Christopher , Paneeni Lohana , Gretchen A. Brenes
{"title":"Quality of life during usual epilepsy care for anxiety or depression symptoms: Secondary patient-reported outcomes in a randomized trial of remote assessment methods","authors":"Heidi M. Munger Clary , Beverly M. Snively , Yaw Kumi-Ansu , Halley B. Alexander , James Kimball , Pamela Duncan , Kelly Conner , Jerryl Christopher , Paneeni Lohana , Gretchen A. Brenes","doi":"10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2024.107396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><p>Anxiety and depression are highly prevalent and impactful in epilepsy. American Academy of Neurology quality measures emphasize anxiety and depression screening and quality of life (QOL) measurement, yet usual epilepsy care QOL and anxiety/depression outcomes are poorly characterized. The main objective was to assess 6-month QOL, anxiety and depression during routine care among adults with epilepsy and baseline anxiety or depression symptoms; these were prespecified secondary outcomes within a pragmatic randomized trial of remote assessment methods.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Adults with anxiety or depression symptoms and no suicidal ideation were recruited from a tertiary epilepsy clinic via an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded process. Participants were randomized 1:1 to 6 month outcome collection via patient portal EHR questionnaires vs. telephone interview. This report focuses on an a priori secondary outcomes of the overall trial, focused on patient-reported health outcomes in the full sample. Quality of life, (primary health outcome), anxiety, and depression measures were collected at 3 and 6 months (Quality of Life in Epilepsy-10, QOLIE-10, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory-Epilepsy). Change values and 95 % confidence intervals were calculated. In post-hoc exploratory analyses, patient-reported anxiety/depression management plans at baseline clinic visit and healthcare utilization were compared with EHR-documentation, and agreement was calculated using the kappa statistic.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Overall, 30 participants (15 per group) were recruited and analyzed, of mean age 42.5 years, with 60 % women. Mean 6-month change in QOLIE-10 overall was 2.0(95 % CI −6.8, 10.9), and there were no significant differences in outcomes between the EHR and telephone groups. Mean anxiety and depression scores were stable across follow-up (all 95 % CI included zero). Outcomes were similar regardless of whether an anxiety or depression action plan was documented. During the baseline interview, most participants with clinic visit EHR documentation indicating action to address anxiety and/or depression reported not being offered a treatment(7 of 12 with action plan, 58 %), and there was poor agreement between patient report and EHR documentation (kappa=0.22). Healthcare utilization was high: 40 % had at least one hospitalization or emergency/urgent care visit reported and/or identified via EHR, but a third (4/12) failed to self-report an EHR-identified hospitalization/urgent visit.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Over 6 months of usual care among adults with epilepsy and anxiety or depression symptoms, there was no significant average improvement in quality of life or anxiety/depression, suggesting a need for interventions to enhance routine neurology care and achieve quality of life improvement for this group.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11914,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsy Research","volume":"204 ","pages":"Article 107396"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsy Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920121124001116","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and objectives
Anxiety and depression are highly prevalent and impactful in epilepsy. American Academy of Neurology quality measures emphasize anxiety and depression screening and quality of life (QOL) measurement, yet usual epilepsy care QOL and anxiety/depression outcomes are poorly characterized. The main objective was to assess 6-month QOL, anxiety and depression during routine care among adults with epilepsy and baseline anxiety or depression symptoms; these were prespecified secondary outcomes within a pragmatic randomized trial of remote assessment methods.
Methods
Adults with anxiety or depression symptoms and no suicidal ideation were recruited from a tertiary epilepsy clinic via an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded process. Participants were randomized 1:1 to 6 month outcome collection via patient portal EHR questionnaires vs. telephone interview. This report focuses on an a priori secondary outcomes of the overall trial, focused on patient-reported health outcomes in the full sample. Quality of life, (primary health outcome), anxiety, and depression measures were collected at 3 and 6 months (Quality of Life in Epilepsy-10, QOLIE-10, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory-Epilepsy). Change values and 95 % confidence intervals were calculated. In post-hoc exploratory analyses, patient-reported anxiety/depression management plans at baseline clinic visit and healthcare utilization were compared with EHR-documentation, and agreement was calculated using the kappa statistic.
Results
Overall, 30 participants (15 per group) were recruited and analyzed, of mean age 42.5 years, with 60 % women. Mean 6-month change in QOLIE-10 overall was 2.0(95 % CI −6.8, 10.9), and there were no significant differences in outcomes between the EHR and telephone groups. Mean anxiety and depression scores were stable across follow-up (all 95 % CI included zero). Outcomes were similar regardless of whether an anxiety or depression action plan was documented. During the baseline interview, most participants with clinic visit EHR documentation indicating action to address anxiety and/or depression reported not being offered a treatment(7 of 12 with action plan, 58 %), and there was poor agreement between patient report and EHR documentation (kappa=0.22). Healthcare utilization was high: 40 % had at least one hospitalization or emergency/urgent care visit reported and/or identified via EHR, but a third (4/12) failed to self-report an EHR-identified hospitalization/urgent visit.
Discussion
Over 6 months of usual care among adults with epilepsy and anxiety or depression symptoms, there was no significant average improvement in quality of life or anxiety/depression, suggesting a need for interventions to enhance routine neurology care and achieve quality of life improvement for this group.
期刊介绍:
Epilepsy Research provides for publication of high quality articles in both basic and clinical epilepsy research, with a special emphasis on translational research that ultimately relates to epilepsy as a human condition. The journal is intended to provide a forum for reporting the best and most rigorous epilepsy research from all disciplines ranging from biophysics and molecular biology to epidemiological and psychosocial research. As such the journal will publish original papers relevant to epilepsy from any scientific discipline and also studies of a multidisciplinary nature. Clinical and experimental research papers adopting fresh conceptual approaches to the study of epilepsy and its treatment are encouraged. The overriding criteria for publication are novelty, significant clinical or experimental relevance, and interest to a multidisciplinary audience in the broad arena of epilepsy. Review articles focused on any topic of epilepsy research will also be considered, but only if they present an exceptionally clear synthesis of current knowledge and future directions of a research area, based on a critical assessment of the available data or on hypotheses that are likely to stimulate more critical thinking and further advances in an area of epilepsy research.