ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2018
Neurologist-patient communication about epilepsy in the United States, Spain, and Germany.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health priorities and treatment preferences of adults with epilepsy: A narrative literature review with a systematic search.Epilepsy & behavior : E&B · 2025Pooled it
- A Mixed Study on the Health Education Needs of Caregivers for People Living with Epilepsy Undergoing Surgical Treatment and the Effects of a Health Education Program.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective communication between patients and their health care providers is recognized as critically important to improve the quality of health services for individuals with epilepsy. We aimed to describe in-office neurologist-patient conversations about epilepsy and focus on disease identification, shared decision-making, and care planning.
methodsTranscripts and audio recordings of conversations between patients and neurologists in the United States, Spain, and Germany were analyzed linguistically in the topic areas of epilepsy identification and diagnosis, disease education, treatments, and care planning. Analyses included word-level assessments, topic switching, strategies of information elicitation, identification of topics discussed, quantification of questions asked, and assessment of types of questions asked.
resultsConversations of 17 neurologists in the United States, 12 in Spain, and 6 in Germany, with 50, 20, and 16 patients, respectively, were analyzed. Neurologists tended to utilize an event-based, patient-friendly vocabulary to refer to seizures, and in the United States, they avoided using the term "epilepsy." Regardless of who initiated the treatment discussion, the neurologists in all 3 countries were unilaterally responsible for the treatment decision and choice of medication. When describing a new medication, neurologists most often discussed potential side effects but did not review potential benefits. Neurologists rarely defined seizure control and did not ask patients what seizure control meant to them.
conclusionsWe identified opportunities related to vocabulary, decision-making, and treatment goal setting that could be targeted to improve neurologist-patient communication about epilepsy, and ultimately, the overall treatment experience and outcomes for patients.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.