MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392653819 · doi:10.1016/j.seizure.2024.03.003

Perceived and self-stigma in people with epilepsy in East Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4392653819 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Techilo Tinsae, Shegaye Shumet, Girmaw Medfu Takelle, Gidey Rtbey, Setegn Fentahun, Wondale Getinet

Bibliographic record

VenueSeizure · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStigma (botany)Meta-analysisEpilepsyPsychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background People 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. Methodology This 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 I 2 statistical test. Publication bias was checked using Egger's statistical test and funnel plot. Results The 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. Conclusion Roughly 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.030
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeizureSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207