Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29783981›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Implementing integrated services for people with epilepsy in primary care in Ethiopia: a qualitative study.

Raquel Catalao, Tigist Eshetu, Ruth Tsigebrhan, Girmay Medhin, Abebaw Fekadu, Charlotte Hanlon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Raquel CatalaoCamden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Tigist EshetuAddis Ababa University, College of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ruth TsigebrhanAddis Ababa University, College of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Girmay MedhinAddis Ababa University, Aklilu-Lemma Institute of Pathobiology, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Abebaw FekaduKing's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Health Service and Population Research Department, Centre for Global Mental Health, London, UK.
Charlotte HanlonKing's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Health Service and Population Research Department, Centre for Global Mental Health, London, UK. charlotte.hanlon@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7937-3226
Addis Ababa University · ETBrighton and Sussex Medical School · GBCamden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

Department for International Development, UK Government 201446Medical Research Council MR/M025470/1Seventh Framework Programme 305968
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn order to tackle the considerable treatment gap for epilepsy in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), a task sharing model is recommended whereby care is integrated into primary health services. However, there are limited data on implementation and impact of such services in LMICs. Our study aimed to explore the perspectives of service users and caregivers on the accessibility, experience and perceived impact of epilepsy treatment received in a task-shared model in a rural district of Ethiopia.

methodsA qualitative study was carried out using interviews with purposively sampled service users (n = 13) and caregivers (n = 3) from a community-ascertained cohort of people with epilepsy receiving integrated services in primary care in rural Ethiopia. Interviews followed a topic guide with questions regarding acceptability, satisfaction, barriers to access care, pathways through care and impact of services. Framework analysis was employed to analyse the data.

resultsProximity of the new service in local primary health centers decreased the cost of transportation for the majority of service users thus improving access to services. First-hand experience of services was in some cases associated with a willingness to promote the services and inform others of the existence of effective biomedical treatment for epilepsy. However, most service users and their caregivers continued to seek help from traditional healers alongside biomedical care. Most of the care received was focused on medication provision with limited information provided on how to manage their illness and its effects. Caregivers and service users spoke about the high emotional and financial burden of the disease and lack of ongoing practical and emotional support. The majority of participants reported clinical improvement on medication, which in over half of the participants was associated with ability to return to money generating activities.

conclusionsTask-sharing improved the accessibility of epilepsy care for services users and caregivers and was perceived as having a positive impact on symptoms and productivity. Nonetheless, promotion of self-management, holistic care and family engagement were highlighted as areas requiring further improvement. Future work on implementing chronic care models in LMIC contexts is warranted.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAdultCaregiversConfidentialityDeveloping CountriesEpilepsyEthiopiaFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchRural Health ServicesYoung AdultCommunity health careEpilepsyImplementationmhGAPPrimary health servicesSub-Saharan AfricaTask-sharing

Identifiers

PMID29783981
PMCPMC5963158
OpenAlexW2804656238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.