Disparities in epilepsy: Report of a systematic review by the North American Commission of the international league against epilepsy

159Citations
Citations of this article
212Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Purpose: We undertook a systematic review of the evidence on disparities in epilepsy with a focus on North American data (Canada, United States, and the English-speaking Caribbean). Methods: We identified and evaluated: access to and outcomes following medical and surgical treatment, disability, incidence and prevalence, and knowledge and attitudes. An exhaustive search (1965-2007) was done, including: (1) disparities by socioeconomic status (SES), race/ethnicity, age, or education of subgroups of the epilepsy population; or (2) disparities between people with epilepsy (PWE) and healthy people or with other chronic illnesses. Results: From 1,455 citations, 278 eligible abstracts were identified and 44 articles were reviewed. Comparative research data were scarce in all areas. PWE have been shown to have lower education and employment status; among PWE, differences in access to surgery have been shown by racial/ethnic groups. Aboriginals, women, and children have been shown to differ in use of health resources. Poor compliance has been shown to be associated with lower SES, insufficient insurance, poor relationship with treating clinicians, and not having regular responsibilities. Discussion: Comprehensive, comparative research on all aspects of disparities in epilepsy is needed to understand the causes of disparities and the development of any policies aimed at addressing health disparities and minimizing their impact. © 2009 International League Against Epilepsy.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Burneo, J. G., Jette, N., Theodore, W., Begley, C., Parko, K., Thurman, D. J., & Wiebe, S. (2009). Disparities in epilepsy: Report of a systematic review by the North American Commission of the international league against epilepsy. Epilepsia, 50(10), 2285–2295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02282.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free