4.5 Review

Global disparities in the epilepsy treatment gap: a systematic review

Journal

BULLETIN OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
Volume 88, Issue 4, Pages 260-266

Publisher

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.09.064147

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ana-Claire Meyer: Veterans Affairs/Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program
  2. American Academy of Neurology Practice Research Training Fellowship
  3. Gretchen Birbeck: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To describe the magnitude and variation of the epilepsy treatment gap worldwide. Methods We conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature published from 1 January 1987 to 1 September 2007 in all languages using PubMed and EMBASE. The purpose was to identify population-based studies of epilepsy prevalence that reported the epilepsy treatment gap:defined as the proportion of people with epilepsy who require but do not receive treatment. Negative binomial regression models were used to assess trends and associations. Findings The treatment gap was over 75% in low-income countries and over 50% in most lower middle- and upper middle-income countries, while many high-income countries had gaps of less than 10%. However, treatment gaps varied widely both between and within countries. They were significantly higher in rural areas (rate ratio, RR: 2.01; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.40-2.89) and countries with lower World Bank income classification (RR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.32-1.82). There was no significant trend in treatment gap over time (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.79-1.07). Conclusion There is dramatic global disparity in the care for epilepsy between high- and low- income countries, and between rural and urban settings. Our understanding of the factors affecting the treatment gap is limited; future investigations should explore other potential explanations of the gap.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available