Examining the prevalence of epilepsy and delivery of epilepsy care in Ireland.

PURPOSE: To examine the prevalence of epilepsy and delivery of epilepsy care in Ireland. METHODS: A multiple case ascertainment methodology was employed examining five nationwide data sources. Data were obtained via (1) a nationwide population-based health survey, (2) secondary data analysis of all reimbursements for prescriptions of antiepilepsy medication nationwide from 2002 to 2005, (3) a nationwide survey of primary care community-based physicians, (4) a nationwide survey of specialist care hospital-based neurologists, and (5) secondary data analysis of inpatient discharges from acute hospitals nationwide for persons with a diagnosis of epilepsy between 2000 and 2005. RESULTS: The findings indicate that nationwide approximately (1) 10 per 1,000 persons (n = 31,000) 18 years and older have self-reported lifetime prevalence of epilepsy, (2) 8.3-9 per 1,000 (approximately 33,000-36,000) persons 5 years and older are being treated for epilepsy using antiepilepsy medication, (3) the typical general practitioner provides care to an average of 13 patients with active epilepsy and epilepsy in remission with treatment, (4) specialist care is provided on a weekly basis to approximately 442 persons with active epilepsy and epilepsy in remission with treatment, and (5) approximately 67 discharges for persons with a primary or secondary diagnosis of epilepsy are reported from acute hospitals weekly. DISCUSSION: This study is distinguished as the first nationwide prevalence study of epilepsy in Europe and provides previously unavailable data on this population in Ireland. Moreover, this study illustrates the merits of secondary data analysis of existing sources when access to clinical sources for the purpose of identifying epidemiologic samples is limited.

Sampling and ethical issues in a multicenter study on health of people with intellectual disabilities.

OBJECTIVES: To study health inequalities in persons with intellectual disabilities, representative and unbiased samples are needed. Little is known about sample recruitment in this vulnerable group. This study aimed to determine differences in ethical procedures and sample recruitment in a multicenter research on health of persons with intellectual disabilities. Study questions regarded the practical sampling procedure, how ethical consent was obtained in each country, and which person gave informed consent for each study participant. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Exploratory, as part of a multicenter study, in 14 European countries. After developing identical guidelines for all countries, partners collected data on health indicators by orally interviewing 1,269 persons with intellectual disabilities. Subsequently, semistructured interviews were carried out with partners and researchers. RESULTS: Identification of sufficient study participants proved feasible. Sampling frames differed from nationally estimated proportions of persons with intellectual disabilities living with families or in residential settings. Sometimes, people with intellectual disabilities were hard to trace. Consent procedures and legal representation varied broadly. Nonresponse data proved unavailable. CONCLUSION: To build representative unbiased samples of vulnerable groups with limited academic capacities, international consensus on respectful consent procedures and tailored patient information is necessary.