↓ Skip to main content

Psychological treatments for people with epilepsy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

34 tweeters
4 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page


23 Dimensions

Readers on

267 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Psychological treatments for people with epilepsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012081.pub2
Pubmed ID

Rosa Michaelis, Venus Tang, Janelle L Wagner, Avani C Modi, William Curt LaFrance Jr, Laura H Goldstein, Tobias Lundgren, Markus Reuber


Given the significant impact epilepsy can have on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of individuals with epilepsy and their families, there is great clinical interest in evidence-based psychological treatments, aimed at enhancing psychological well-being in people with epilepsy. A review of the current evidence was needed to assess the effects of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on HRQoL outcomes, in order to inform future therapeutic recommendations and research designs. To assess the effects of psychological treatments for people with epilepsy on HRQoL outcomes. We searched the following databases on 20 September 2016, without language restrictions: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We screened the references from included studies and relevant reviews, and contacted researchers in the field for unpublished studies. We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs for this review. HRQoL was the main outcome measure. For the operational definition of 'psychological treatments', we included a broad range of treatments that used psychological or behavioral techniques designed to improve HRQoL, seizure frequency and severity, and psychiatric comorbidities for adults and children with epilepsy, compared to treatment as usual (TAU) or an active control group. We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We included 24 completed RCTs, with a total of 2439 participants. Eleven studies investigated psychological interventions, such as cognitive, behavioral, and mindfulness-based interventions. The remaining studies were classified as educational interventions (N = 7), self-management interventions (N = 3), adherence interventions (N = 1), and mixed interventions (N = 2). Two studies investigated interventions for children and adolescents, and five studies investigated interventions for adolescents and adults. Based on satisfactory clinical and methodological homogeneity, we pooled data from six adult studies, two studies on adolescents and adults, and one on adolescents and young adults (468 participants) for HRQoL, measured with the Quality of Life in Epilepsy-31 (QOLIE-31). We found significant mean changes for the QOLIE-31 total score and six subscales (emotional well-being, energy and fatigue, overall QoL, seizure worry, medication effects, and cognitive functioning). The mean changes of the QOLIE-31 total score (mean improvement of 5.68 points (95% CI 3.11 to 8.24; P < 0.0001), and three subscales, emotional well-being (mean improvement of 7.03 points (95% CI 2.51 to 11.54; P = 0.002); energy and Fatigue (mean improvement of 6.90 points (95% CI 3.49 to 10.31; P < 0.0001); and overall QoL (mean improvement of 6.47 points (95% CI 2.68 to 10.25; P = 0.0008) exceeded the threshold of minimally important change (MIC), indicating a clinically meaningful post-intervention improvement of QoL. We downgraded the quality of the evidence provided by the meta-analysis because of serious risk of bias in some of the included studies. Consequentially, these results provided evidence of moderate quality that psychological treatments for adults with epilepsy may enhance overall QoL in people with epilepsy. Implications for practice: Psychological interventions and self-management interventions improved QoL, and emotional well-being, and reduced fatigue in adults and adolescents with epilepsy. Adjunctive use of psychological treatments for adults and adolescents with epilepsy may provide additional benefits to QoL in those who incorporate patient-centered management. Authors should strictly adhere to the CONSORT guidelines to improve the quality of reporting on their interventions. A thorough description of the intervention protocol is necessary to ensure reproducibility.When researching psychological treatments for people with epilepsy, the use of Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventories (QOLIE-31, QOLIE-31-P, and QOLIE-89) would increase comparability. There is a critical gap in pediatric RCTs for psychological treatments, particularly those that use an epilepsy-specific measure of HRQoL.Finally, in order to increase the overall quality of study designs, adequate randomization with allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment should be pursued when conducting RCTs. As attrition is often high in research that requires active participant participation, an intention-to-treat analysis should be carried out.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 267 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 267 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 19%
Student > Bachelor 40 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 11%
Researcher 27 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 58 22%
Unknown 46 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 24%
Psychology 44 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 12%
Unspecified 14 5%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Other 39 15%
Unknown 61 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2019.
All research outputs
of 15,087,745 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 320,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,087,745 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,904 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.