More effective assessment of adverse effects and comorbidities in epilepsy: Results of a Phase II communication study

John M. Stern, David M. Labiner, Frank G. Gilliam, Patricia E. Penovich, Meaghan Onofrey, Corey A. Eagan, Gregory L. Holmes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

Research was conducted to evaluate conversations about epilepsy between community-based neurologists and patients. Adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs and mood/behavioral issues were infrequently discussed, and neurologists and patients disagreed about these issues postvisit. Follow-up research was conducted to assess the impact of a previsit assessment tool on discussions of epilepsy. Twenty neurologists reviewed a tool incorporating questions from validated instruments (Adverse Events Profile [AEP] and Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy [NDDI-E]). Naturally occurring interactions between neurologists and 60 patients were recorded. Neurologists and patients were interviewed separately. All components were transcribed and analyzed using sociolinguistics. Using the previsit assessment tool increased the number of discussions about adverse effects and mood/behavioral issues and increased neurologist-patient agreement about issues postvisit. Visit length did not increase significantly when the tool was used. Ten months after follow-up research, 50% of neurologists reported continuing to use the tool in everyday practice with patients with epilepsy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)552-556
Number of pages5
JournalEpilepsy and Behavior
Volume22
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2011

Keywords

  • Behavior
  • Communication
  • Comorbidities
  • Dialogue
  • Epilepsy
  • Linguistics
  • Misalignment
  • Mood
  • Side effects

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neurology
  • Clinical Neurology
  • Behavioral Neuroscience

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'More effective assessment of adverse effects and comorbidities in epilepsy: Results of a Phase II communication study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this