Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Research & Development, Academic Centre for Epileptology Kempenhaeghe Maastricht UMC+, The Netherlands; Department of Neurology, Academic Centre for Epileptology Kempenhaeghe Maastricht UMC+, The Netherlands.
Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Research & Development, Academic Centre for Epileptology Kempenhaeghe Maastricht UMC+, The Netherlands.
Epilepsy Behav. 2018 Mar;80:259-265. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2018.01.019. Epub 2018 Feb 12.
The objective of the ZMILE study was to compare the effectiveness of a multicomponent self-management intervention (MCI) with care as usual (CAU) in adult patients with epilepsy (PWE) over a six-month period.
Participants (PWE & relative) were randomized into intervention or CAU groups. Self-report questionnaires were used to measure disease-specific self-efficacy as the primary outcome measure and general self-efficacy, adherence, seizure severity, emotional functioning, quality of life, proactive coping, and side-effects of antiepileptic drugs (AED) as secondary outcome measures. Instruments used at baseline and during a six-month follow-up period were the following: disease-specific self-efficacy (Epilepsy Self-Efficacy Scale [ESES], General Self-Efficacy Scale [GSES]); adherence (Medication Adherence Scale [MARS] and Medication Event Monitoring System [MEMS]); seizure severity (National Hospital Seizure Severity Scale [NHS3]); emotional well-being (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]); quality of life (Quality of Life in Epilepsy [QOLIE-31P]); proactive coping (Utrecht Proactive Coping Competence [UPCC]); and side-effects of antiepileptic drugs [SIDAED]. Multilevel analyses were performed, and baseline differences were corrected by inclusion of covariates in the analyses.
In total, 102 PWE were included in the study, 52 of whom were in the intervention group. On the SIDAED and on three of the quality of life subscales QOLIE-31P, a significant difference was found (p<0.05) in the intervention group. Self-efficacy, however, showed no significant differences between the MCI and the CAU groups. None of the other outcome measures showed any significant difference between the two groups.
Although we found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome measure, disease-specific self-efficacy, this MCI could prove promising, since we found improvement in some domains of quality of life in epilepsy scale and a decrease in AED side-effects in the MCI group compared with the CAU group.
ZMILE 研究的目的是比较多成分自我管理干预(MCI)与常规护理(CAU)在六个月内对成年癫痫患者(PWE)的疗效。
参与者(PWE 和家属)被随机分配到干预组或 CAU 组。使用自我报告问卷测量疾病特异性自我效能作为主要结局指标,以及一般自我效能、依从性、癫痫发作严重程度、情绪功能、生活质量、积极应对和抗癫痫药物(AED)的副作用作为次要结局指标。在基线和六个月随访期间使用的工具包括:疾病特异性自我效能(癫痫自我效能量表[ESES]、一般自我效能量表[GSES]);依从性(药物依从性量表[MARS]和药物事件监测系统[MEMS]);癫痫发作严重程度(国家医院癫痫严重程度量表[NHS3]);情绪健康(医院焦虑和抑郁量表[HADS]);生活质量(癫痫生活质量[QOLIE-31P]);积极应对(乌得勒支积极应对能力量表[UPCC]);以及 AED 的副作用[SIDAED]。进行了多层次分析,并通过在分析中纳入协变量来校正基线差异。
共有 102 名 PWE 参与了这项研究,其中 52 名在干预组。在 SIDAED 和三个生活质量子量表 QOLIE-31P 中,干预组的得分存在显著差异(p<0.05)。然而,自我效能在 MCI 和 CAU 组之间没有显著差异。其他结局指标在两组之间均无显著差异。
尽管我们在主要结局指标(疾病特异性自我效能)上未发现统计学上的显著差异,但这种 MCI 可能具有潜力,因为我们发现与 CAU 组相比,MCI 组在癫痫生活质量量表的某些领域有所改善,AED 的副作用有所减少。