Perceived and self-stigma in people with epilepsy in East Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundPeople with stigmatizing conditions associated with epilepsy encounter many difficulties in their daily lives and are more likely to have low self-esteem, low levels of hope, internalize negative attitudes, decrease adherence to treatment, and experience unemployment. The purpose of this study was to quantify the extent of perceived stigma and self-stigma among people with epilepsy.MethodologyThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Item Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline. PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and HINARI were major search databases. The included literature reports the prevalence of perceived stigma and self-stigma among people with epilepsy in East Africa. The quality of each study was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Data were extracted using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, and data analysis was performed using STATA version 11. The pooled prevalence of perceived stigma and self-stigma was determined using a random effect model. Heterogeneity between studies was checked using the I2 statistical test. Publication bias was checked using Egger's statistical test and funnel plot.ResultsThe pooled prevalence of perceived stigma and self-stigma in people with epilepsy was 43.9% with a 95% CI (29.2, 58.7) and 41.2% with a 95% CI (12.1, 70.3), respectively. Based on the country, sub-group analysis revealed that the prevalence of perceived stigma among people with epilepsy shows a notable difference between the countries. In Ethiopia, the prevalence was 51.8% with a 95% CI of 29.8 to 73.8; in Uganda, 39.4% with a 95% CI of 27.1 to 51.3; in Tanzania, 27.4% with a 95% CI of 27.9 to 36.9; and in Kenya, 33.2% with a 95% CI of 28.2 to 38.2.ConclusionRoughly 30% of people with epilepsy experience self-stigma, while approximately 44% of people with epilepsy experience perceived stigma. As a result, the relevant authorities ought to focus on reducing the prevalence of stigma among people who have epilepsy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".