The impact of <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 on people with epilepsy: Global results from the coronavirus and epilepsy study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the experience of people with epilepsy and aligned healthcare workers (HCWs) during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic and compare experiences in high-income countries (HICs) with non-HICs. METHODS: Separate surveys for people with epilepsy and HCWs were distributed online in April 2020. Responses were collected to September 2021. Data were collected for COVID-19 infections, the effect of COVID-related restrictions, access to specialist help for epilepsy (people with epilepsy), and the impact of the pandemic on work productivity (HCWs). The frequency of responses for non-HICs and HICs were compared using non-parametric Chi-square tests. RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred and five individuals with epilepsy from 53 countries and 392 HCWs from 26 countries provided data. The same proportion of people with epilepsy in non-HICs and HICs reported COVID-19 infection (7%). Those in HICs were more likely to report that COVID-19 measures had affected their health (32% vs. 23%; p < 0.001). There was no difference between non-HICs and HICs in the proportion who reported difficulty in obtaining help for epilepsy. HCWs in non-HICs were more likely to report COVID-19 infection than those in HICs (18% vs 6%; p = 0.001) and that their clinical work had been affected by concerns about contracting COVID-19, lack of personal protective equipment, and the impact of the pandemic on mental health (all p < 0.001). Compared to pre-pandemic practices, there was a significant shift to remote consultations in both non-HICs and HICs (p < 0.001). SIGNIFICANCE: While the frequency of COVID-19 infection was relatively low in these data from early in the pandemic, our findings suggest broader health consequences and an increased psychosocial burden, particularly among HCWs in non-HICs. Planning for future pandemics should prioritize mental healthcare alongside ensuring access to essential epilepsy services and expanding and enhancing access to remote consultations. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: We asked people with epilepsy about the effects of COVID-19 on their health and healthcare. We wanted to compare responses from people in high-income countries and other countries. We found that people in high-income countries and other countries had similar levels of difficulty in getting help for their epilepsy. People in high-income countries were more likely to say that their general health had been affected. Healthcare workers in non-high-income settings were more likely to have contracted COVID-19 and have the care they deliver affected by the pandemic. Across all settings, COVID-19 associated with a large shift to remote consultations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».