Pal Deb K, Das Tulika, Sengupta Suryanil, Chaudhury Gautam
Neurosciences Unit, Institute of Child Health, University College London, England.
Epilepsia. 2002 Aug;43(8):904-11. doi: 10.1046/j.1528-1157.2002.47601.x.
Most people in the world with epilepsy are untreated with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). In some developing countries, this is because treatment facilities are unavailable or difficult to access. It has even been suggested that indigenous health systems threaten the prospect of the global control of epilepsy with AEDs. We have investigated patterns and costs of help seeking for children with epilepsy in a region of rural India where only 12% of children with epilepsy were in treatment. Our objective was to find out (a) whom families had consulted; (b) if nonconsulting families differed in demographic or child medical factors; (c) if indigenous treatment was taken, exclusive of allopathic treatment; and (d) the direct and indirect cost of various providers.
We conducted a cross-sectional interview study in a community-based program for childhood epilepsy in rural West Bengal, India. We interviewed parents of 85 children aged 2 to 18 years with untreated epilepsy who had entered a clinical trial of AEDs during 1995 through 1996.
Eighty percent of families had sought some help in the past: 62% with an allopathic practitioner, 44% with traditional practitioners. Primary health centres (PHCs) and quacks were not popular. Twenty-four percent of families never sought help of any kind, and this was unassociated with sex, income, maternal literacy, or medical variables. There was evidence of both exclusivity and pluralism: 42% of families first consulting allopathic practitioners also visited traditional practitioners, whereas 30% of families first consulting traditional practitioners also went to allopathic practitioners. One visit to a physician cost a median of 9-13% of monthly income and 5-12 person-hours; the cost of visiting indigenous providers was negligible.
Most families sought some form of help and were motivated to spend large amounts of money and time for allopathic treatments from qualified practitioners. The typical cost of allopathic treatment was unsustainable in the long term. Medical pluralism is common and does not adversely influence use of allopathic treatment. The phenomenon of nonconsulting merits further study. Traditional practitioners play a complementary role and might become involved in community treatment programs. Low-cost, local treatment is essential to the public health control of epilepsy.
世界上大多数癫痫患者未接受抗癫痫药物(AEDs)治疗。在一些发展中国家,这是因为缺乏治疗设施或难以获得治疗。甚至有人认为,本土医疗体系威胁到全球使用AEDs控制癫痫的前景。我们在印度农村地区调查了癫痫患儿寻求帮助的模式和成本,该地区只有12%的癫痫患儿接受治疗。我们的目的是弄清楚:(a)家庭咨询过哪些人;(b)未咨询的家庭在人口统计学或儿童医疗因素方面是否存在差异;(c)是否采用了本土治疗(不包括对抗疗法治疗);(d)各类医疗服务提供者的直接和间接成本。
我们在印度西孟加拉邦农村一个针对儿童癫痫的社区项目中开展了一项横断面访谈研究。我们采访了85名年龄在2至18岁、未接受治疗的癫痫患儿的父母,这些患儿在1995年至1996年期间参加了AEDs的临床试验。
80%的家庭过去曾寻求过某种帮助:62%的家庭咨询过对抗疗法医生,44%的家庭咨询过传统医生。初级卫生保健中心(PHCs)和庸医不受欢迎。24%的家庭从未寻求过任何帮助,这与性别、收入、母亲识字率或医疗变量无关。有排他性和多元性的证据:首次咨询对抗疗法医生的家庭中有42%也拜访过传统医生,而首次咨询传统医生的家庭中有30%也去看过对抗疗法医生。看一次医生的费用中位数为月收入的9 - 13%,花费5 - 12人时;拜访本土医疗服务提供者的费用可忽略不计。
大多数家庭寻求过某种形式的帮助,并有动力花费大量金钱和时间从合格医生那里接受对抗疗法治疗。从长远来看,对抗疗法治疗的典型成本是不可持续的。医疗多元性很常见,且不会对对抗疗法治疗的使用产生不利影响。不咨询的现象值得进一步研究。传统医生发挥着补充作用,可能会参与社区治疗项目。低成本的本地治疗对癫痫的公共卫生控制至关重要。