Cited by 76Epilepsy research and treatmentMental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Long-term outcomes from the PEARLS randomized trial for the treatment of depression in patients with epilepsy

Chaytor, Naomi, Ciechanowski, Paul, Miller, John W., Fraser, Robert, Russo, Joan, Unutzer, Jurgen, Gilliam, Frank·2011·Epilepsy & Behavior

Abstract

Depression is associated with higher rates of suicide and lower quality of life in individuals with epilepsy. We previously published the 12-month outcome from our randomized clinical trial of PEARLS (Ciechanowski P, Chaytor N, Miller J, et al. Epilepsy Behav. Epub 5 July 2010). The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term effectiveness of PEARLS, a home-based collaborative care intervention consisting of problem-solving treatment, behavioral activation, and psychiatric consultation, in individuals with epilepsy. Patients were randomly assigned to PEARLS (N=40) or usual care (N=40), and assessed at baseline and 6, 12, and 18 months. Patients assigned to PEARLS achieved lower depression severity (P<0.05) (Hopkins Symptoms Checklist-20), lower suicidal ideation (P<0.02), and better emotional well being (QOLIE-31) (P<0.02) over 18 months, compared with patients given the usual care. The PEARLS program significantly reduces depressive symptoms in adults with epilepsy, and this effect is maintained for 18 months after baseline and for more than 1 year after completion of home visits.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.yebeh.2011.01.017

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chaytor, N., Ciechanowski, P., Miller, J. W., Fraser, R., Russo, J., Unutzer, J., & Gilliam, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Geisinger Health System (US)
Corresponding author
Chaytor, Naomi
Venue
Epilepsy & Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-03
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
545-549
ISSN
1525-5050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2107265032
Cited by
76
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
FWCI
5.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Epilepsy & Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K24NS047551, R01NS040808)
  • National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (U48-DP000050)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Epilepsy research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
depression, epilepsy, problem-solving therapy, behavioral activation, psychiatric consultation, suicidal ideation, emotional well-being, quality of life, long-term treatment effectiveness, usual care comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Depression, Emotions, Epilepsy, Female, Home Care Services, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Quality of Life, Suicide, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome

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