4.5 Article

Acceptability and effectiveness of a strategy for the communication of the diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

Journal

EPILEPSIA
Volume 51, Issue 1, Pages 70-78

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02099.x

Keywords

Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures; Diagnosis; Communication; Illness perceptions; Psychological treatment

Funding

  1. Ryder Briggs Trust
  2. National Institute for Health Research [PB-PG-1207-15127] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Purpose: Communicating the diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) is a challenging task. This study was carried out to assess the acceptability and effectiveness of a new communication procedure consisting of a patient information leaflet and a communication strategy for neurologists. Methods: In a multicenter prospective study, 50 patients newly diagnosed with PNES were informed about the diagnosis by 10 different neurologists using the communication procedure. Follow-up data were gathered by telephone interview and completion of a questionnaire about symptom attributions (psychological/physical) and illness cognitions (Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised, IPQ-R). Results: Ninety-four percent of patients found the leaflet easy to understand. Ninety-four percent stated their questions were answered by the doctor; 70% got what they wanted from the consultation; only 4% reported feeling angry during the consultation. Eighty-six percent of patients acknowledged that psychological factors were at least contributing to their seizures. On the IPQ-R, emotional causes for the seizures were endorsed more commonly than nonemotional causes (p < 0.001). After 3 months, 14% of patients were seizure-free and 63% reported a > 50% reduction in seizure frequency. Discussion: We conclude that our procedure is acceptable and effectively communicates a psychological etiologic model for PNES.

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