Revisiting knowledge, attitudes and perceptions towards epilepsy after a decade of interventions: The case of Tbilisi, Georgia

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Sofia Kasradze , Giorgi Lomidze , Nino Gogatishvili , Salome Mgeliashvili , Tamara Antia , Josemir W Sander
{"title":"Revisiting knowledge, attitudes and perceptions towards epilepsy after a decade of interventions: The case of Tbilisi, Georgia","authors":"Sofia Kasradze ,&nbsp;Giorgi Lomidze ,&nbsp;Nino Gogatishvili ,&nbsp;Salome Mgeliashvili ,&nbsp;Tamara Antia ,&nbsp;Josemir W Sander","doi":"10.1016/j.yebeh.2024.110166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>One of the most significant challenges faced by people with epilepsy is the stigma imposed by the broader community. We aim to assess the dynamics of stigma and the level of misconceptions towards individuals with epilepsy by comparing two studies conducted decades apart.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Awareness-raising campaigns and professional skill development activities were conducted. We utilised a Georgian-adapted structured questionnaire and the Stigma Scale of Epilepsy (SSE) questionnaire, which had previously been validated in Georgian. A cross-sectional study was conducted. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to develop a predictive model for stigma perception. To compare the two studies, we used the Chi-squared test to examine differences in proportions between the two populations, including the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportions. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 1,146 participants, 502 (43.8%) were female, and 207 (18.1%) had a medical education. Higher levels of stigma were observed more frequently among individuals without a medical background. Participants who perceived epilepsy as a psychiatric disorder, a hereditary condition, or a congenital disability exhibited higher levels of stigma. Comparisons between the two studies reveal a significant decrease in the number of individuals who would oppose their child marrying or playing with someone who has epilepsy.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Respondents with medical backgrounds were less likely to express stigma and misconceptions. A comparison of the two studies indicates a statistically significant improvement over the past decade, likely to be partly attributable to regular awareness-raising campaigns.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11847,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsy & Behavior","volume":"162 ","pages":"Article 110166"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsy & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525505024005481","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

One of the most significant challenges faced by people with epilepsy is the stigma imposed by the broader community. We aim to assess the dynamics of stigma and the level of misconceptions towards individuals with epilepsy by comparing two studies conducted decades apart.

Methods

Awareness-raising campaigns and professional skill development activities were conducted. We utilised a Georgian-adapted structured questionnaire and the Stigma Scale of Epilepsy (SSE) questionnaire, which had previously been validated in Georgian. A cross-sectional study was conducted. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to develop a predictive model for stigma perception. To compare the two studies, we used the Chi-squared test to examine differences in proportions between the two populations, including the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportions. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Of the 1,146 participants, 502 (43.8%) were female, and 207 (18.1%) had a medical education. Higher levels of stigma were observed more frequently among individuals without a medical background. Participants who perceived epilepsy as a psychiatric disorder, a hereditary condition, or a congenital disability exhibited higher levels of stigma. Comparisons between the two studies reveal a significant decrease in the number of individuals who would oppose their child marrying or playing with someone who has epilepsy.

Conclusions

Respondents with medical backgrounds were less likely to express stigma and misconceptions. A comparison of the two studies indicates a statistically significant improvement over the past decade, likely to be partly attributable to regular awareness-raising campaigns.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Epilepsy & Behavior
Epilepsy & Behavior 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
15.40%
发文量
385
审稿时长
43 days
期刊介绍: Epilepsy & Behavior is the fastest-growing international journal uniquely devoted to the rapid dissemination of the most current information available on the behavioral aspects of seizures and epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior presents original peer-reviewed articles based on laboratory and clinical research. Topics are drawn from a variety of fields, including clinical neurology, neurosurgery, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, neurophysiology, neuropharmacology, and neuroimaging. From September 2012 Epilepsy & Behavior stopped accepting Case Reports for publication in the journal. From this date authors who submit to Epilepsy & Behavior will be offered a transfer or asked to resubmit their Case Reports to its new sister journal, Epilepsy & Behavior Case Reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信