↓ Skip to main content

Care delivery and self management strategies for adults with epilepsy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 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.
Title
Care delivery and self management strategies for adults with epilepsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006244.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter M Bradley, Bruce Lindsay, Nigel Fleeman

Abstract

Researchers have criticised epilepsy care for adults for its lack of impact, stimulating the development of various service models and strategies to respond to perceived inadequacies. To assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention beyond that of usual care in adults with epilepsy. For the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (9 December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to June 2013), EMBASE (1988 to June 2013), PsycINFO (1887 to December 2013) and CINAHL (1937 to December 2013). In addition, we contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies. We included randomised controlled trials, controlled or matched trials, cohort studies or other prospective studies with a control group, and time series studies. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted all data, and assessed the quality of all included studies. Our review included 18 different studies of 16 separate interventions, which we classified into seven distinct groups. Most of the studies have methodological weaknesses, and many results from other analyses within studies need to be interpreted with caution because of study limitations. Consequently, there is currently limited evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and quality of life in people with epilepsy. It was not possible to combine study results in a meta-analysis because of the heterogeneity of outcomes, study populations, interventions and time scales across the studies. Two intervention types, the specialist epilepsy nurse and self management education, have some evidence of benefit. However, we did not find clear evidence that other service models substantially improve outcomes for adults with epilepsy. It is also possible that benefits are situation specific and may not apply to other settings. These studies included only a small number of service providers whose individual competence or expertise may have had a significant impact on outcomes. At present it is not possible to advocate any single model of service provision.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 181 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 22%
Student > Bachelor 33 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 12%
Researcher 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 33 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 20%
Psychology 21 12%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 2%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 45 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 November 2019.
All research outputs
#8,952,572
of 14,280,939 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,257
of 10,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,842
of 339,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#163
of 191 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,280,939 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,940 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 339,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 191 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.