CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 88Epilepsy research and treatmentFamily and Disability Support ResearchNursing care and research

FLIP&FLAP—A training programme for children and adolescents with epilepsy, and their parents

Open access
Jantzen, S., Müller-Godeffroy, E., Hallfahrt-Krisl, T., Aksu, F., Püst, B., Kohl, B., Redlich, A., Sperner, J. +1 more·2009·Seizure
DOI 10.1016/j.seizure.2009.04.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective The objective of this article is to present the development, contents and efficacy of the FLIP&FLAP programme for children and adolescents with epilepsy, and their parents.Intervention The programme is mainly directed at age-appropriately developed children and adolescents between 6 and 16 who take antiepileptic drugs. It is conducted as a 2.5-day group training programme; children and parents are grouped separately. The main focuses are: EVALUATION STUDY: We performed a multi-centre non-randomised two-group pre-/post-trial using a waiting-list control group design. 10 German epilepsy centres participated. The intervention group, IG (21 children 8-11 years, 44 adolescents 12-16 years, 72 parents) completed standardised questionnaires immediately before the FLIP&FLAP course and 6 months later; the waiting control group, WCG (31 children, 39 adolescents, 72 parents) 6 months before and immediately before the course. Compared to the WCG, the children and parents of the IG showed significantly improved knowledge of epilepsy, with medium to large effect sizes (univariate analysis of variance with repeated measurements, d=0.6-1.4). Parents of the IG reported improved self-management skills (d=0.7) and communication skills (d=0.8) of their child and fewer epilepsy-related worries (d=0.5). Children and adolescents of the IG reported improved HRQOL in the Social Exclusion dimension (d=0.3).Conclusion FLIP&FLAP is an effective child- and family-centred programme. It is currently being established in Northern Germany to test its usefulness in routine care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.seizure.2009.04.007

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Reasons for a rating as high ROB included quasi-randomized trial designs such as a matched design (n = 1, 4%), alternating assignment (n = 1, 4%), and allocation based on participants' application to 1 of 2 available courses and availability of spaces in offered courses in a WLC design (n = 2, 8%).

    “Reasons for a rating as high ROB included quasirandomized trial designs such as a matched design (n = 1, 4%), 33 alternating assignment (n = 1, 4%), 45 and allocation based on participants ' application to 1 of 2 available courses and availability of spaces in offered courses in a WLC design (n = 2, 8%). 38,42”

    From Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on health-related quality of life (2018) · cites this paper as [38]

    Section 3.1.1 says applicants for the first course entered the intervention group and applicants for the second entered the waiting-list control group. Section 3.2.1 gives the numbers applying to each course. The cited paper does not say that availability of spaces determined allocation; the matched and alternating designs are attributed to other citations in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Eight studies (33%) were rated as low risk for attrition bias as there was only a small number of missing data, which were balanced across the groups with justifiable reasons.

    “Eight studies (33%) 27,29,36,38,39,44,48,49 were rated as low risk as there was only a small number of missing data, which were balanced across the groups with justifiable reasons.”

    From Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on health-related quality of life (2018) · cites this paper as [38]

    Section 3.2.1 reports less than 10% loss to follow-up in every subgroup, with similarly small losses in the intervention and waiting-list control groups. It does not give reasons for the missing follow-up data. The eight-study (33%) count is the citing review’s assessment, not a finding this individual paper can establish. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Five studies (55%) found no significant differences between the treatment and control groups in seizure frequency.

    “whereas the other 5 studies (55%) found no significant differences between the groups. 26,27,33,35,38,42”

    From Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on health-related quality of life (2018) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Medical outcomes section (3.2.2.4) reports no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the length of seizure-free episodes. The Questionnaires section (3.1.2) explicitly says the study collected seizure-free episodes rather than seizure frequency, so it does not directly establish the claimed result for seizure frequency. The five-study count is the citing authors’ synthesis, not a finding attributed to this individual paper. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Only 2 studies investigated educational interventions for children with epilepsy.

    “The majority of studies examined interventions for adults with epilepsy (75%); only 2 studies investigated educational interventions for children with epilepsy. 38,42”

    From Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on health-related quality of life (2018) · cites this paper as [38]

  • Almost half of all study designs included a wait list control (WLC) group (n = 11, 46%).

    “Almost half of all study designs included a wait list control (WLC) group (n = 11, 46%). 28,31 -33,37,38,40,42,43,45,46”

    From Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on health-related quality of life (2018) · cites this paper as [38]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jantzen, S., Müller-Godeffroy, E., Hallfahrt-Krisl, T., Aksu, F., Püst, B., Kohl, B., Redlich, A., Sperner, J., & Thyen, U.
Affiliations
  • University of Lübeck (DE)
  • Witten/Herdecke University (DE)
  • Katholisches Kinderkrankenhaus Wilhelmstift (DE)
  • Universität Hamburg (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Jantzen, S.
  • Aksu, F.
  • Püst, B.
  • Redlich, A.
  • Sperner, J.
  • Thyen, U.
ORCID
Venue
Seizure
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-09
Volume
18
Issue
7
Pages
478-486
ISSN
1059-1311 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.seizure.2009.04.007
OpenAlex
W2084757994
Cited by
88
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Seizure (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Cilag
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Epilepsy research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family and Disability Support Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
Keywords
epilepsy, children and adolescents, parents, antiepileptic drugs, epilepsy knowledge, self-management skills, communication skills, health-related quality of life, social exclusion, family-centered intervention
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Epilepsy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Parent-Child Relations, Parents, Patient Education as Topic, Psychology, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Care, Self Concept, Time Factors, Program Evaluation, Chi-Square Distribution, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review