Cited by 103Epilepsy research and treatmentMental Health and Patient InvolvementDiabetes Management and Education

PACES in epilepsy: Results of a self‐management randomized controlled trial

Open access
Fraser, Robert T., Johnson, Erica K., Lashley, Steven, Barber, Jason, Chaytor, Naomi, Miller, John W., Ciechanowski, Paul, Temkin, Nancy +1 more·2015·Epilepsia

Abstract

Summary: Objective: Self‐management challenges facing adults with epilepsy include limited understanding of the condition and treatment, associated psychosocial issues, and lack of community integration. Self‐management interventions improve patients' medical, life role, and emotional management. Previous interventions, developed from expert opinion, indicated issues with participant engagement/retention, and limited follow‐up periods. PACES in Epilepsy addressed methodologic concerns by utilizing patient needs assessment data (n = 165) to derive self‐management content and program features for evaluation via randomized controlled trial (RCT). Methods: Participants were adults with chronic epilepsy (n = 83), without serious mental illness or substantive intellectual impairment, who were recruited from two epilepsy centers. Participants were assigned randomly to intervention or treatment‐as‐usual groups. Outcomes included the Epilepsy Self‐Management Scale (ESMS), Epilepsy Self‐Efficacy Scale (ESES), Quality of Life in Epilepsy‐31 (QOLIE‐31), Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9), and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder‐7 (GAD‐7), administered at baseline, postintervention (8 weeks), and 6 months postintervention. The intervention was an 8‐week group of 6–8 adults co‐led by a psychologist and trained peer with epilepsy that met one evening per week at a hospital for 75 min. Topics included medical, psychosocial, cognitive, and self‐management aspects of epilepsy, in addition to community integration and optimizing epilepsy‐related communication. The treatment group provided satisfaction ratings regarding program features. Results: PACES participants (n = 38) improved relative to controls (n = 40) on the ESMS (p < 0.001) and subscales [Information (p < 0.001); Lifestyle (p < 0.002)]; ESES (p < 0.001); and QOLIE‐31 (p = 0.002). At 6‐month follow up, PACES participants remained improved on the ESMS (p = 0.004) and Information subscale (p = 0.009); and Energy/Fatigue (p = 0.032) and Medication Effects (p = 0.005) of the QOLIE‐31. Attrition in both groups was low (8% in each group) and all program satisfaction ratings exceeded 4.0/5.0, with leadership (4.76), topics (4.53), and location (4.30) as the most highly rated aspects. Significance: A consumer generated epilepsy self‐management program appears to be a promising intervention from multiple perspectives, particularly in relation to disability management.

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 · 10.1111/epi.13052

Cites

37 of 37 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?

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF, DiClemente CC, et al. Measuring the pro- cess of change: application to the cessation of smoking. J Consult Clin Psychol 1988;56:520-528.
  2. Miller L, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing. 2nd Ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2002.
  3. Thompson NJ, Patel A, Selwa L, et al. The efficacy of project UPLIFT for prevention: distance delivery of mindfulness-based depression pre- vention. J Consult Clin Psychol 2015;83:304-313.
  4. Cramer JA, Perrine K, Devinsky O, et al. Development and cross-cul- tural translation of a 31-item quality of life questionnaire (QOLIE-31). Epilepsia 1998;39:81-88.
  5. Doran GT. There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals. Manage Rev 1981;70:35-36.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fraser, R. T., Johnson, E. K., Lashley, S., Barber, J., Chaytor, N., Miller, J. W., Ciechanowski, P., Temkin, N., & Caylor, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Swedish Neuroscience Institute Seattle Washington U.S.A
Corresponding author
Fraser, Robert T.
Venue
Epilepsia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-06-29
Volume
56
Issue
8
Pages
1264-1274
ISSN
  • 0013-9580 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-1167
OpenAlex
W1897918544
Cited by
103
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 5
FWCI
8.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Epilepsia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (DP002273)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Epilepsy research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
epilepsy self-management, self-management interventions, patient needs assessment, quality of life, depression, anxiety, social reintegration, patient engagement, patient satisfaction, attrition, QOLIE-31
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Depression, Epilepsy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Quality of Life, Self Care, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Self Efficacy, Needs Assessment

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