Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39247323›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Four questions to assess attitudes toward epilepsy, the caveness questions: Analytical study to verify the usefulness of the Japanese version.

Izumi Kuramochi, Takayuki Iwayama, Takafumi Shiganami, Sayaka Kobayashi, Haruo Yoshimasu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Izumi KuramochiDepartment of Psychiatry, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Takayuki IwayamaDepartment of Psychiatry, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Takafumi ShiganamiDepartment of Psychiatry, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Sayaka KobayashiDepartment of Psychiatry, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Haruo YoshimasuDepartment of Psychiatry, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study sought to translate the Caveness questions (CQs), initially formulated in the United States for assessing attitudes toward people with epilepsy (PWE), into Japanese. Concurrently, the study examined the translated instrument's psychometric properties, specifically the usefulness within Japan's cultural and linguistic context. Methods: We crafted the Japanese version of CQs-J by drawing upon the original English and German versions. Subsequently, On May 22nd and 23rd, 2023, we administered an online questionnaire survey to the general public registered with the online research survey service (Cross Marketing Group Inc., Tokyo, Japan). Inclusion criteria comprised an age of ≥18 years, processing proficient reading and speaking skills in Japanese, and demonstrating the ability to comprehend the Japanese questionnaires. In addition, we included questions about age, gender, education levels, employment status, and any experiences with epilepsy. Results: A cohort comprising 400 ordinary people processing prior exposure to information regarding epilepsy participated in the study. Participants provided informed consent before proceeding to complete the study questionnaire. The CQs-J, encompassing following four items.CQ1) Would you object to having any of your children in school or at play associate with persons who sometimes had seizures (fits)?CQ2) Do you think epilepsy is a form of insanity or not?CQ3) Do you think epileptics should or should not be employed in jobs like other people?CQ4) Would you object to having a son or daughter of yours marry a person who sometimes has seizures (fits)?We compared CQs-J groups with negative or positive attitudes towards epilepsy, taking into account age, gender, employment status, education levels, and knowledge and experiences of the condition. Those who responded to the CQ1 question that they would object to their child's occasional association with someone at school or at play who has seizures (fits) were significantly more negative in their experiences with epilepsy: they did not understand what to do during seizures (Ex3, p < 0.01), and they did not believe in the effectiveness of epilepsy treatment (Ex4, p < 0.01). In addition, males were significantly more likely to respond that epilepsy is insanity when asked the CQ2 question (p < 0.001). Additionally, in CQ3, do you think people with epilepsy should have the same access to jobs as other people with epilepsy? Significant differences were found for younger age, a lower overall Epilepsy Knowledge Scale score (p < 0.001), being employed (p = 0.028), Ex3 (p = 0.041), and Ex4 (p < 0.01). Finally, older people were significantly more opposed to marrying someone who has seizures in CQ4 (p < 0.001) or is not working, and others were also significantly more opposed (p = 0.030). Significance: We evaluated the utility of the Japanese version of the CQs, demonstrating its effectiveness for assessing treatment strategies in stigma reduction and enabling cross-cultural comparisons of attitudes towards epilepsy. In large-scale social surveys, the CQs-J scale effectively captures broad attitudes toward epilepsy with a limited number of items and offers the advantage of ease of use for longitudinal studies, such as tracking changes in attitudes over time. Furthermore, we expect the CQs-J results to facilitate in-depth cross-cultural comparisons of attitudes toward epilepsy by comparing them across different cultures.

Indexed as

AttitudeExperienceKnowledgePeople with epilepsy (PWE)Stigma

Identifiers

PMID39247323
PMCPMC11379600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.