ArticleEpileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape2026
Introducing needs-based epilepsy follow-up: Patient satisfaction compared to standard of care follow-up.
Article in Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Introducing needs-based epilepsy follow-up: Patient satisfaction compared to standard of care follow-up.Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape · 2026Article
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeople with epilepsy have diverse healthcare needs, but limited resources make tailored management challenging. To allocate resources where they are most urgently required, we developed an openly available needs-based follow-up model. This system adjusts follow-up frequency based on patients' symptoms, side effects, and other information reported digitally. Our study aimed to compare patient satisfaction with the needs-based model versus standard of care (SOC).
methodWe sent a digital survey to all epilepsy patients at three different Norwegian hospitals. Satisfaction was rated from one ("Not at all") to five ("To a very great extent"). Patients were categorized into three groups: (1) active needs-based follow-up, (2) selected for needs-based follow-up, but no active participation (offered needs-based follow-up but declined or did not fill in any forms yet), and (3) SOC follow-up. We used Pearson's chi-squared test to compare the three groups, with p-values < .05 as significant.
resultsOf 2190 patients, 748 (34%) responded. Group 1 (n = 170) reported better satisfaction than Group 3 (n = 500) in all areas including meeting care needs (p < .001), communication and trust (both p < .001), information needs being met (p < .001), and personalized treatment (p < .001). Compared to Group 2 (n = 78), Group 1 also showed higher satisfaction, particularly with diagnostic information, involvement in follow-up, and accessibility of healthcare providers.
conclusionPatients with needs-based follow-up were more satisfied with their epilepsy care than those with SOC follow-up. Results were consistent also when accounting for potential selection bias to the follow-up model.
Indexed as
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.