Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39137940›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2024

Patients' perspectives of epilepsy care by specialists and generalists: qualitative evidence synthesis.

Charlotte L Cotterill, Andrew Booth, Jon M Dickson, Daniel Hind

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJGP open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Charlotte L CotterillThe University of Sheffield, Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, Sheffield, United Kingdom clcotterill1@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2019-8168
Andrew BoothThe University of Sheffield, Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4808-3880
Jon M DicksonThe University of Sheffield, Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1361-2714
Daniel HindThe University of Sheffield, Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the UK, epilepsy care involves both specialists (for example, neurologists) and generalists (for example, GPs). Policymakers typically consider that epilepsy care should be integrated and involve both specialists and generalists. However, few understand exactly how patients view and compare specialist and generalist care.

aimTo explore patient perspectives of specialist care and generalist care for epilepsy in a qualitative evidence synthesis. DESIGN &

settingA systematic review of patient perspectives of epilepsy care. A qualitative evidence synthesis was conducted using an identified framework.

methodSystematic searches in five databases retrieved 17 eligible studies. Data were extracted and synthesised using framework analysis informed by the 'United Model of Generalism'.

resultsThe following three themes were developed: 'Epilepsy care can be burdensome' (for example, through care fragmentation); 'Patients' experiences of care is that care is not always accessible' (for example, lack of a continuum between standardised and interpretive care); and 'How care could change for people with epilepsy' (for example, clinicians currently have insufficient time to deviate from protocol-driven care to address psychosocial needs). People with epilepsy frequently observe that generalists lack expertise in epilepsy management.

conclusionThis synthesis of patient experiences indicates recommendations should focus on improving communication and integration between specialists and generalists for epilepsy care. Patient experiences indicate specialist care risks being burdensome and generalist knowledge insufficient, requiring enhanced primary care clinician skills and improved awareness of patient psychosocial needs. The findings argue in favour of healthcare policies, materials, and tools to continually support patient perspectives in developing epilepsy services.

Indexed as

epilepsygeneral practitionerspatient perspectivesqualitative researchsystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID39137940
PMCPMC11687264

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.