4.4 Review

Epilepsy misconceptions and stigma reduction interventions in sub-Saharan Africa, a systematic review

Journal

EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR
Volume 85, Issue -, Pages 21-27

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2018.04.014

Keywords

Epilepsy; Seizures; Stigma; Misconceptions; Attitudes

Funding

  1. National Institutes Health [K43TW010401 NINDS]
  2. National Institutes Health (Fogarty International Center (FIC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This systematic review identified papers that described epilepsy misconceptions or stigma in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and research interventions focused on reducing these misconceptions. Materials and methods: Publications in the English language from January 2000 to October 2017 that described original research conducted in SSA on misconceptions about epilepsy were utilized. Results: Twenty-three publications were identified. Studies were from Nigeria (N = 4), Cameroon (N = 4), Uganda (N = 3), Zambia (N = 2), Ethiopia (N = 2), Tanzania (N = 2), Kenya (N = 2), Ghana, Zimbabwe, Benin, and Mali (N=1 each). The studies included assessments of misconceptions among healthcare providers and medical students (N=3), high school students (N=2), teachers (N=2), the general public (N=10), people with epilepsy (N=7), and traditional healers (N=1). Only two studies had stigma-focused interventions. Majority of the studies reported limitations to socialization with people with epilepsy and various beliefs associated with epilepsy. Conclusions: Epilepsy misconceptions, stigmatizing cultural beliefs, and perceptions were widely prevalent in SSA, and there are a few studies targeting epilepsy stigma. Existing stigma-reduction educational approaches may be impractical for general population implementation. Scalable approaches to reduce stigma are urgently needed within SSA. (c) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available