Development of a rapid screener to elicit patient preferences for antiseizure medication discontinuation

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Epilepsy & Behavior Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.yebeh.2024.110240
Samuel W. Terman , Jordan M. Silva , Max Kuster , Jasper Lee , Amanda Brand , Kara Manuel , Navya Kalia , Micaela Dugan , Marla Reid , Katherine Mortati , Alexandra Tolmasov , Palak S. Patel , James F. Burke , Arthur C. Grant , Susanna S. O’Kula , Chloe E. Hill
{"title":"Development of a rapid screener to elicit patient preferences for antiseizure medication discontinuation","authors":"Samuel W. Terman ,&nbsp;Jordan M. Silva ,&nbsp;Max Kuster ,&nbsp;Jasper Lee ,&nbsp;Amanda Brand ,&nbsp;Kara Manuel ,&nbsp;Navya Kalia ,&nbsp;Micaela Dugan ,&nbsp;Marla Reid ,&nbsp;Katherine Mortati ,&nbsp;Alexandra Tolmasov ,&nbsp;Palak S. Patel ,&nbsp;James F. Burke ,&nbsp;Arthur C. Grant ,&nbsp;Susanna S. O’Kula ,&nbsp;Chloe E. Hill","doi":"10.1016/j.yebeh.2024.110240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>While guidelines encourage individualized discussions of the risks and benefits of antiseizure medication (ASM) withdrawal after a period of seizure-freedom, no formal methods exist for assessing patient preferences. We report the initial development of a rapid patient preferences screener.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a mixed-methods study of adults who were ≥1 year seizure-free and seen for epilepsy across three institutions. We reviewed existing questionnaires and adapted three questions measuring core constructs influencing ASM decisions – views about ASMs, driving restrictions, and seizures. We added one additional “global” question, for 4 total questions. Participants rated question clarity and utility from 1 (low) to 7 (high).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 32 participants, the median patient age was 46 (interquartile range [IQR] 33–56), with a median 3 years since their last seizure (IQR 2–11). Median responses were: 2 (IQR 1–5) for being bothered by ASMs, 2 (IQR 1–6) for feeling that a driving restriction would be disruptive, and 5 (IQR 4–7) for feeling that another seizure would be serious. Respondents tended to disagree that ASMs are doing more harm than good (median 1, IQR 1–2). Participants rated question clarity (median 6, IQR 6–7) and utility (median 7, IQR 6–7) highly.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>We report the initial development of a pre-visit rapid screener of patient preferences pertinent to ASM withdrawal in well-controlled epilepsy. Patients endorsed the utility of such a screener and provided guidance to improve items. We hope that this work will ultimately improve shared decision-making.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11847,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsy & Behavior","volume":"163 ","pages":"Article 110240"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsy & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S152550502400622X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

While guidelines encourage individualized discussions of the risks and benefits of antiseizure medication (ASM) withdrawal after a period of seizure-freedom, no formal methods exist for assessing patient preferences. We report the initial development of a rapid patient preferences screener.

Methods

We conducted a mixed-methods study of adults who were ≥1 year seizure-free and seen for epilepsy across three institutions. We reviewed existing questionnaires and adapted three questions measuring core constructs influencing ASM decisions – views about ASMs, driving restrictions, and seizures. We added one additional “global” question, for 4 total questions. Participants rated question clarity and utility from 1 (low) to 7 (high).

Results

Of 32 participants, the median patient age was 46 (interquartile range [IQR] 33–56), with a median 3 years since their last seizure (IQR 2–11). Median responses were: 2 (IQR 1–5) for being bothered by ASMs, 2 (IQR 1–6) for feeling that a driving restriction would be disruptive, and 5 (IQR 4–7) for feeling that another seizure would be serious. Respondents tended to disagree that ASMs are doing more harm than good (median 1, IQR 1–2). Participants rated question clarity (median 6, IQR 6–7) and utility (median 7, IQR 6–7) highly.

Conclusions

We report the initial development of a pre-visit rapid screener of patient preferences pertinent to ASM withdrawal in well-controlled epilepsy. Patients endorsed the utility of such a screener and provided guidance to improve items. We hope that this work will ultimately improve shared decision-making.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开发一种快速筛选器,以引出患者对停药的偏好。
目的:虽然指南鼓励个体化讨论抗癫痫药物(ASM)在一段时间无发作后停药的风险和益处,但没有正式的方法来评估患者的偏好。我们报告了快速患者偏好筛选器的初步发展。方法:我们进行了一项混合方法研究,研究对象是在三家机构中无癫痫发作≥1年的成人。我们回顾了现有的调查问卷,并改编了三个衡量影响ASM决策的核心结构的问题——对ASM的看法、驾驶限制和癫痫发作。我们增加了一个额外的“全局”问题,总共有4个问题。参与者将问题的清晰度和实用性从1(低)到7(高)打分。结果:在32名参与者中,患者年龄中位数为46岁(四分位数范围[IQR] 33-56),距最后一次癫痫发作的中位数为3年(IQR 2-11)。中位反应为:2 (IQR 1-5)表示被asm困扰,2 (IQR 1-6)表示感觉驾驶限制会造成干扰,5 (IQR 4-7)表示感觉再次发作会很严重。受访者倾向于不同意asm弊大于利(中位数1,IQR 1-2)。参与者高度评价问题的清晰度(中位数为6,IQR 6-7)和实用性(中位数为7,IQR 6-7)。结论:我们报告了一种与控制良好的癫痫患者ASM戒断相关的患者偏好的会诊前快速筛查的初步发展。患者认可这种筛选器的实用性,并提供改进项目的指导。我们希望这项工作最终能改善共同决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Epilepsy & Behavior
Epilepsy & Behavior 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
15.40%
发文量
385
审稿时长
43 days
期刊介绍: Epilepsy & Behavior is the fastest-growing international journal uniquely devoted to the rapid dissemination of the most current information available on the behavioral aspects of seizures and epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior presents original peer-reviewed articles based on laboratory and clinical research. Topics are drawn from a variety of fields, including clinical neurology, neurosurgery, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, neurophysiology, neuropharmacology, and neuroimaging. From September 2012 Epilepsy & Behavior stopped accepting Case Reports for publication in the journal. From this date authors who submit to Epilepsy & Behavior will be offered a transfer or asked to resubmit their Case Reports to its new sister journal, Epilepsy & Behavior Case Reports.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the effectiveness of two video-based educational interventions to enhance knowledge about epilepsy in preschool children Unseen yet overcounted: The paradox of seizure frequency reporting Development of a self-management tool for individuals with seizure clusters: Trial design and methodological report Prevalence of depression in people with epilepsy: A hospital-based study in Cameroon Effect of sex on neuropsychiatric comorbidities in childhood epilepsy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1