社会经济地位对癫痫管理的影响:一项定性研究

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Jessica Spooner , Soham Bandyopadhyay , Mohammad Baraka , Josemir W. Sander
{"title":"社会经济地位对癫痫管理的影响:一项定性研究","authors":"Jessica Spooner ,&nbsp;Soham Bandyopadhyay ,&nbsp;Mohammad Baraka ,&nbsp;Josemir W. Sander","doi":"10.1016/j.yebeh.2025.110685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Socioeconomic status (SES) is a recognised determinant of epilepsy outcome, yet it remains unclear whether epilepsy management is effectively contextualised to meet the needs of individuals across different SES backgrounds. This study explored how adults with epilepsy perceive the influence of SES on their care and self-management.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In-depth, semi-structured videoconference or telephone interviews were conducted until data saturation with fifteen adults (11 women, 18–75 <!--> <!-->years) recruited through national epilepsy charities. SES was classified with the “MacArthur Subjective Social Status ladder” and “Social Determinants of Health” indicators, yielding eight low/lower‑middle (“lower‑SES”) and seven upper‑middle/high (“higher‑SES”) participants. Two researchers analysed transcripts inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. Member checking confirmed analytic credibility.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Eight interrelated themes emerged: support networks and relationships; financial implications and access to care; employment and economic stability; transportation and independence; treatment and medication adherence; interactions with the healthcare system; perceived power imbalance and stigma; and trust and future care decisions. In every theme, lower–SES participants reported a more significant number of – and more disruptive – barriers than higher–SES participants. They described issues regarding obtaining transport and medicines, navigating opaque benefit systems, lacking dependable social support, limited access to specialist care, and feeling dismissed or stigmatised by clinicians, which eroded trust and prompted disengagement from care. Higher–SES participants, while not immune to challenges, more often mobilised resources to buffer their impact.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Lower socioeconomic status intensifies financial, informational, and relational barriers to managing epilepsy effectively, undermining adherence and care consistency. Routine SES assessment, tailored education, and integrated social–support interventions are crucial to reduce these inequities and improve outcomes for socioeconomically disadvantaged people with epilepsy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11847,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsy & Behavior","volume":"172 ","pages":"Article 110685"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of socioeconomic status on the management of epilepsy: a qualitative study\",\"authors\":\"Jessica Spooner ,&nbsp;Soham Bandyopadhyay ,&nbsp;Mohammad Baraka ,&nbsp;Josemir W. Sander\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.yebeh.2025.110685\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Socioeconomic status (SES) is a recognised determinant of epilepsy outcome, yet it remains unclear whether epilepsy management is effectively contextualised to meet the needs of individuals across different SES backgrounds. This study explored how adults with epilepsy perceive the influence of SES on their care and self-management.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In-depth, semi-structured videoconference or telephone interviews were conducted until data saturation with fifteen adults (11 women, 18–75 <!--> <!-->years) recruited through national epilepsy charities. SES was classified with the “MacArthur Subjective Social Status ladder” and “Social Determinants of Health” indicators, yielding eight low/lower‑middle (“lower‑SES”) and seven upper‑middle/high (“higher‑SES”) participants. Two researchers analysed transcripts inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. Member checking confirmed analytic credibility.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Eight interrelated themes emerged: support networks and relationships; financial implications and access to care; employment and economic stability; transportation and independence; treatment and medication adherence; interactions with the healthcare system; perceived power imbalance and stigma; and trust and future care decisions. In every theme, lower–SES participants reported a more significant number of – and more disruptive – barriers than higher–SES participants. They described issues regarding obtaining transport and medicines, navigating opaque benefit systems, lacking dependable social support, limited access to specialist care, and feeling dismissed or stigmatised by clinicians, which eroded trust and prompted disengagement from care. Higher–SES participants, while not immune to challenges, more often mobilised resources to buffer their impact.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Lower socioeconomic status intensifies financial, informational, and relational barriers to managing epilepsy effectively, undermining adherence and care consistency. Routine SES assessment, tailored education, and integrated social–support interventions are crucial to reduce these inequities and improve outcomes for socioeconomically disadvantaged people with epilepsy.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11847,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epilepsy & Behavior\",\"volume\":\"172 \",\"pages\":\"Article 110685\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-03\",\"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/S1525505025004251\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsy & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525505025004251","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

摘要

社会经济地位(SES)是癫痫预后的一个公认的决定因素,然而癫痫管理是否能有效地满足不同社会经济地位背景个体的需求仍不清楚。本研究探讨成人癫痫患者如何感知SES对其护理和自我管理的影响。方法对全国癫痫慈善机构招募的15名成人(女性11名,年龄18-75岁)进行深度、半结构化视频会议或电话访谈,直至数据饱和。社会经济地位按“麦克阿瑟主观社会地位阶梯”和“健康的社会决定因素”指标分类,产生8名低/中下(“低社会经济地位”)和7名中上/高(“高社会经济地位”)参与者。两位研究者运用反身性主题分析法对转录本进行归纳分析。成员检查确认了分析的可信性。结果八个相互关联的主题出现了:支持网络和关系;财政影响和获得保健的机会;就业和经济稳定;交通和独立;治疗和药物依从性;与卫生保健系统的互动;感知到的权力失衡和耻辱;信任和未来护理的决定。在每个主题中,社会地位较低的参与者比社会地位较高的参与者报告的障碍数量更多,更具破坏性。他们描述了诸如获得交通工具和药品、驾驭不透明的福利体系、缺乏可靠的社会支持、获得专科护理的机会有限、感觉被临床医生忽视或污名化等问题,这些问题侵蚀了信任并促使他们脱离护理。社会经济地位较高的参与者虽然不能幸免于挑战,但更经常调动资源来缓冲其影响。结论较低的社会经济地位加剧了有效管理癫痫的财务、信息和关系障碍,破坏了依从性和护理一致性。常规SES评估、量身定制的教育和综合社会支持干预措施对于减少这些不公平现象和改善社会经济弱势癫痫患者的预后至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The impact of socioeconomic status on the management of epilepsy: a qualitative study

Introduction

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a recognised determinant of epilepsy outcome, yet it remains unclear whether epilepsy management is effectively contextualised to meet the needs of individuals across different SES backgrounds. This study explored how adults with epilepsy perceive the influence of SES on their care and self-management.

Methods

In-depth, semi-structured videoconference or telephone interviews were conducted until data saturation with fifteen adults (11 women, 18–75  years) recruited through national epilepsy charities. SES was classified with the “MacArthur Subjective Social Status ladder” and “Social Determinants of Health” indicators, yielding eight low/lower‑middle (“lower‑SES”) and seven upper‑middle/high (“higher‑SES”) participants. Two researchers analysed transcripts inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. Member checking confirmed analytic credibility.

Results

Eight interrelated themes emerged: support networks and relationships; financial implications and access to care; employment and economic stability; transportation and independence; treatment and medication adherence; interactions with the healthcare system; perceived power imbalance and stigma; and trust and future care decisions. In every theme, lower–SES participants reported a more significant number of – and more disruptive – barriers than higher–SES participants. They described issues regarding obtaining transport and medicines, navigating opaque benefit systems, lacking dependable social support, limited access to specialist care, and feeling dismissed or stigmatised by clinicians, which eroded trust and prompted disengagement from care. Higher–SES participants, while not immune to challenges, more often mobilised resources to buffer their impact.

Conclusion

Lower socioeconomic status intensifies financial, informational, and relational barriers to managing epilepsy effectively, undermining adherence and care consistency. Routine SES assessment, tailored education, and integrated social–support interventions are crucial to reduce these inequities and improve outcomes for socioeconomically disadvantaged people with epilepsy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信