An online survey on differences in knowledge and stigma about epilepsy among the Tokyo metropolitan area and non-urban areas in Japan, a post-hoc study.

PURPOSE: Extant research elucidating the domains of knowledge and bias on epilepsy has consistently underscored a deficiency in cognizance and an inclination toward bias within non-urban areas. Investigations into geographical disparities concerning epilepsy awareness and prejudice within the Japanese context remain conspicuously absent. To address this lacuna in the literature, we undertook a post-hoc analysis to elucidate the discernible regional differentials in epilepsy awareness and the associated stigma. METHODS: From July to August 2021, we conducted an internet questionnaire survey for 310 people with epilepsy (PWE) and 213 ordinary people without epilepsy who registered on the database of the Japanese Research Company. We inquired PWE to answer the Epilepsy Self-Stigma Scale (ESSS), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), and the Epilepsy Knowledge Scale (EKS). We inquired to answer ordinary people without epilepsy EKS. We analyzed residential addresses separately for Greater Tokyo and non-urban areas by comparing the degree of knowledge of people with epilepsy and people without epilepsy. RESULTS: The average knowledge of people with and without epilepsy in the Greater Tokyo area was 39.60 and 28.43 points, although in non-urban areas (nine regions from all over Japan except for the Greater Tokyo, Tokai region, and Kinki region), the knowledge averages were 38.44 and 28.66 points of 100. In addition, self-stigma was highest in the Greater Tokyo area: 22.99 and in non-urban areas: 22.77. An two-way ANOVA with knowledge as the dependent variable and epilepsy diagnosis status and region (Greater Tokyo area/non-urban areas) as the independent variables revealed no interaction between diagnosis and region (F(1,346) = 1.48, η2 = 0.003). Knowledge was significantly higher in PWE than in people without epilepsy, but we could not identify any significant difference between ESSS (t = 0.24, d = 0.03) and RSES (t = 1.16, d = 0.16) in the Greater Tokyo/non-urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: We obtained specific information about regional differences in the level of knowledge and stigma about epilepsy in Japan. Because Japan underwent educational reforms after World War II and more than 90% of the population received equally advanced education, the results found no regional differences in knowledge and stigma about epilepsy. We believe collecting information about the respondents' birth and upbringing environment and conducting a thorough investigation is necessary in the future.

Internet survey on knowledge and perceptions of epilepsy among the general public in Japan.

Objective: To improve the life quality of people with epilepsy, it is necessary to provide comprehensive epilepsy care and disseminate accurate information related to epilepsy to the public. In Japan, reports of traffic accidents involving people with epilepsy started to draw attention in the media in 2011. Ever since that, the association between the image of epilepsy from the general public, "Epilepsy," and "Danger," was more robust in 2013. Since 2017, no previous surveys have examined the perceptions and knowledge of epilepsy among the public in Japan. As an essential source of information for epilepsy care, we conducted a nationwide Internet-based survey to elucidate the current state of knowledge and perceptions of epilepsy among the public without epilepsy in Japan. Methods: We conducted an online survey from July 29 to August 2, 2021, with 213 respondents (115 male, 97 female, and one unidentified; mean age: 50.52 ± 12.34 years) registered with an online survey service in Japan. In this survey, we first questioned whether or not a respondent had epilepsy, and then those with epilepsy were excluded from participation. We collected basic demographic information, administered the Epilepsy Knowledge Scale (18 items), and asked the open-ended response question, "What kind of disease do you think epilepsy is? If you do not know, please describe epilepsy in your words." We adopted quantitative text analysis using KH Coder3 and co-occurrence network analysis to examine the connections between words. Results: Among the respondents, 92% have heard of epilepsy, and 26.8% have observed an epileptic seizure before the survey. The knowledge scale yields an average score of 27.96 ± 21.3 (out of 100), with the question with the highest percentage of correct responses being "People with epilepsy are just as capable as other people" at 51.64%. The question with the lowest percentage of correct responses was "If the person with epilepsy only has seizures during sleep, the person can have a driver's license," at 9.85%. The average number of Japanese characters responding to open-ended text questions was 10.45 ± 8.87 characters (including Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana). We found that the word "froth" appeared more frequently with experience of observing a seizure, and the words "occur" and "brain" appeared more frequently with higher knowledge of epilepsy. Furthermore, comparing the sources of information from what they learned about epilepsy, the words "seizure," "faint," and "consciousness" appeared more frequently in school, with family and friends, and in newspapers and television, respectively. Conclusion: We identified the level of knowledge and perceptions of epilepsy among the general public in Japan in 2021. By analyzing the qualitative aspects of open-ended text responses, we gathered information that might be useful for informing the public of future efforts to provide accurate information related to epilepsy.

A study of factors influencing self-stigma in people with epilepsy: A nationwide online questionnaire survey in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: Epilepsy carries a significant stigma. While there is some evidence that self-stigma accompanies a lack of knowledge about epilepsy, there are no studies in Japan. This study aimed to determine factors contributing to self-stigma in Japan. METHODS: We conducted an online questionnaire survey. Three hundred and ten patients completed the questionnaire (mean age of 47.8 ± 11.9) in contrast to the total registered users on the questionnaire site as 28 315 from Jul 29 to Aug 2, 2021. We asked about demographic variables, satisfaction with treatment, limitations in life, support status, seizure frequency, the Epilepsy Self-Stigma Scale (ESSS), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), and the Epilepsy Knowledge Scale (EKS). We conducted the statistical analysis on self-stigma, self-esteem, knowledge of epilepsy, and seizure frequency associations by Spearman's rank correlation. RESULTS: The mean value of the EKS was 40.19 ± 18.75, the ESSS was 17.69 ± 6.25, and the RSES was 26.02 ± 6.13. We identified a significant moderate negative correlation between self-esteem and self-stigma (P < .001, ρ = -.423), a significant weak positive correlation between self-esteem and knowledge (P = .005, ρ = .177), and a significant weak negative correlation between seizure frequency and self-stigma (P < .001, ρ = -.162). Of the 186 respondents who were working or studying, 91 (49%) participants had experienced any discrimination due to epilepsy. The use of psychosocial support, that is, participating in epilepsy self-help groups and educational programs, was 5.8%. SIGNIFICANCE: There was no correlation between the strength of self-stigma and the knowledge, while there was a positive correlation between self-esteem and knowledge (P = .005, ρ = .177). There was a negative and weak correlation between seizure frequency and self-stigma (p < .001, ρ = -.162). These results suggest that sufficient knowledge may improve the self-esteem and thus reduce the self-stigma. In addition, short-term treatment for seizure control is insufficient to reduce self-stigma. The dissemination for people to enable sufficient epilepsy knowledge and positive perceptions of epilepsy by increasing self-efficacy throughout a lifetime may reduce self-stigma.

Association between psychotropic prescriptions and the total amount of psychotropics ingested during an intentional overdose: A single-center retrospective study.

AIM: To investigate the association between psychotropic prescriptions and the total amount of psychotropics ingested during a subsequent intentional overdose and to examine factors related to the number of psychotropic prescriptions. METHODS: The initial sample comprised 69 patients who were admitted to the emergency department of a general hospital in Japan following an intentional overdose via psychotropic medications. We performed retrospective hierarchical multiple regression analysis with the total amount of psychotropics ingested at the overdose as a dependent variable and factors related to deliberate self-harm or overdose identified in previous studies as independent variables. We compared two models, one that did not (Step 1) and one that did (Step 2) include the number of different prescribed psychotropic medications as an independent variable in the analysis. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were eligible for the analysis. The number of different prescribed psychotropic medications was associated with the total amount of psychotropics ingested at the overdose in Step 2 (ß = 0.40, P = .01). There was a trend toward an association between the past number of deliberate self-harm events and the total amount of psychotropics ingested at the overdose in Step 1 (ß = 0.30, P = .05), but this trend was weakened in Step 2 (ß = 0.15, P = .33). CONCLUSION: The number of different prescribed psychotropics appeared to influence the risk of subsequent intentional overdose through increasing the total amount of psychotropics ingested. Cumulative psychotropic prescriptions, particularly those delivered after deliberate self-harm, might be indirectly related to this risk.

Antipsychotics for delirium in the general hospital setting in consecutive 2453 inpatients: a prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Attention to risk of antipsychotics for older patients with delirium has been paid. A clinical question was whether risk of antipsychotics for older patients with delirium would exceed efficacy of those even in the general hospital setting. METHODS: A prospective observational study proceeded over a 1-year period at 33 general hospitals, where at least one psychiatrist worked full time. Subjects were patients who developed delirium during their admission due to acute somatic diseases or surgery, and who received antipsychotics for delirium. The primary outcome was rates and kinds of serious adverse events. RESULTS: Among 2834 patients who developed delirium, 2453 patients received antipsychotics, such as risperidone (34%), quetiapine (32%), and parenteral haloperidol (20%), for delirium. Out of 2453 patients, 22 serious adverse events (0.9%) were reported. Aspiration pneumonia was the most frequent (17 patients, 0.7%), followed by cardiovascular events (4 patients, 0.2%) and venous thromboembolism (1 patient, 0.0%). There was no patient with a fracture or intracranial injury due to a fall. No one died because of antipsychotic side effects. The mean Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement Scale score was 2.02 (SD 1.09). Delirium was resolved within 1 week in more than half of the patients (54%). CONCLUSIONS: In the general hospital setting under management including fine dosage adjustment and early detection of side effects, risk of antipsychotics for older patients with delirium might be low, in contrast to antipsychotics for dementia in the nursing home or outpatient settings. A point may be not how to avoid using antipsychotics but how to monitor their risk.