Cited by 39Epilepsy research and treatmentFamily and Disability Support ResearchNursing care and research

Schulung von Kindern mit Epilepsie und deren Eltern mit dem Modularen Schulungsprogramm Epilepsie für Familien (FAMOSES) - Ergebnisse einer Evaluationsstudie

Rau, J., May, T. W., Pfäfflin, M., Heubrock, D., Petermann, F.·2006·Die Rehabilitation

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of the modular educational program for children with epilepsy and their parents (FAMOSES). This program was developed by an interdisciplinary project group to improve knowledge, coping, treatment outcome, emotional and practical adaptation to the condition. METHODS: A prospective, controlled, multi-center, pre-post study design was used to examine the efficacy of the program in the treatment group compared to the waiting group (control group). Questionnaires included epilepsy specific scales regarding knowledge, attitudes, restrictions in daily living, epilepsy related fears, coping with the chronic disease and generic instruments (quality of life, KINDL). 55 parents of the treatment group completed the questionnaires three months before the course and three months later; the corresponding waiting group included 48 parents. Respectively, 31 children, who participated in the program, completed the questionnaires immediately before the course and three months later; the corresponding waiting group included 19 children. RESULTS: Children, who attended the program, showed improvements in the domains perceived restrictions (significant, medium effect size), absence from school and seizure frequency. Not significantly greater compared to the control group were the improvements of knowledge, attitudes and fears regarding to the epilepsy. Parents of the treatment group showed significant enhancements in epilepsy specific knowledge (large effect size), attitudes toward the epilepsy, management of epileptic seizures and significant reductions of fears and restrictions of their child with epilepsy (small to medium effect sizes).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-2005-915371

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rau, J., May, T. W., Pfäfflin, M., Heubrock, D., & Petermann, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Bremen (DE)
  • Gesellschaft für Epilepsieforschung e.V. (DE)
Venue
Die Rehabilitation
Published
2006
Volume
45
Issue
01
Pages
27-39
ISSN
  • 0034-3536 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-1309
OpenAlex
W2001094432
Cited by
39
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.85
Type
journal article
Language
de
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Die Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
pediatric epilepsy, parent education, modular educational programs, epilepsy knowledge, parental attitudes, seizure control, school absenteeism, seizure frequency, quality of life, coping with chronic illness
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attitude to Health, Child, Educational Measurement, Epilepsy, Family, Female, Health Education, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Program Evaluation, Incidence, Treatment Outcome, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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