8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Parents’/caregivers’ fears and concerns about their child’s epilepsy: A scoping review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Childhood epilepsy is a serious and common neurological condition and can have life-long consequences and its impact can pervade all aspects of family life. Whilst the medical management of seizures is important, much of the day-to-day home management of epilepsy is invisible to people external to the family, including health care professionals, and parents’/caregivers’ fears and concerns can go unacknowledged and unaddressed by health care professionals.

          Objective

          This objective of this review was to examine parents’/caregivers’ fears and concerns regarding their child’s epilepsy, the impact of these fears and concerns on family life, the social and emotional well-being of parents/caregivers and any factors which mitigate these fears and concerns.

          Design

          Scoping review using a modified version of Arksey and O’Malley’s framework.

          Data sources

          Relevant studies were identified using key search terms in Scopus, Medline, CINAHL and PsychInfo databases in March 2021 with hand checking of reference lists. Search terms were developed using population (parents/caregivers of children aged ≤ 18 years with epilepsy, families); concept (parents’/caregivers’ fears, concerns, anxiety about their child’s epilepsy); and context (any setting). A further search was run in April 2022. Other inclusion criteria: English language empirical studies, 2010–2021.

          Study appraisal methods

          A minimum of two reviewers independently screened articles and undertook data extraction and decisions were consensually made.

          Methodological quality appraisal was undertaken using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool v2018. A data extraction table was created to chart all studies. The conduct and reporting of this study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) ( S1 Table). There is no published copy of the review protocol.

          Main findings

          The search identified a total of 4077 papers (after duplicates were removed) of which 110 were assessed for eligibility. Twenty-four papers published between 2010–2021 were included in the review and each paper was treated as a separate study. The review findings indicate that parents’/caregivers’ fears and concerns stem from more than their child’s seizures and relate to many wider aspects of family life. These fears and concerns had far-reaching influences on their parenting/caregiving, and on the lifestyle and activities of their child and their family. What was less evident was what parents/caregivers wanted in terms of support or how they thought health professionals could acknowledge and/or allay their fears and concerns. The discussion is framed within the compassion-focused therapy model as a basis for generating new thinking about the impact of these fears and concerns and the need for a new agenda for clinical consultations in childhood epilepsy.

          Conclusions

          The review concludes with a proposal that a more compassionate agenda underpins the dialogue between parents/caregivers and clinicians to encompass and mitigate the wider emotional, psychosocial, and societal threats that impact on the parent/caregivers of children with epilepsy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references81

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

              Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                6 September 2022
                2022
                : 17
                : 9
                : e0274001
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Faculty of Health, Social Care and Medicine, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, United Kingdom
                [2 ] Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Centre for Psychological Research, Department of Psychology, Health and Professional Development, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom
                [3 ] Department of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
                [4 ] Allied Health Research Unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom
                Xiamen University - Malaysia Campus: Xiamen University - Malaysia, MALAYSIA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5226-9878
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7563-3409
                Article
                PONE-D-22-05662
                10.1371/journal.pone.0274001
                9447888
                36067199
                0b21d2db-5427-4da0-9eea-ec1ce41d749b
                © 2022 Carter et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 2 March 2022
                : 20 August 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 1, Pages: 21
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007602, Programme Grants for Applied Research;
                Award ID: RP-PG-0615-20007
                Award Recipient :
                This review is an additional component of Changing Agendas on Sleep, Treatment and Learning in Childhood Epilepsy (CASTLE), which is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research RP-PG-0615-20007. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Neurology
                Epilepsy
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Emotions
                Fear
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Emotions
                Fear
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Emotions
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Emotions
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Age Groups
                Children
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Families
                Children
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pediatrics
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Database and Informatics Methods
                Database Searching
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Education
                Schools
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article