Does the concept of resilience contribute to understanding good quality of life in the context of epilepsy?

A significant body of research highlights negative impacts of epilepsy for individual quality of life (QOL). Poor seizure control is frequently associated with reporting of poor QOL and good seizure control with good QOL; however, this is not a universal finding. Evidence suggests that some people enjoy good QOL despite ongoing seizures while others report poor QOL despite good seizure control. Understanding the factors that influence QOL for people with epilepsy and the processes via which such factors exert their influence is central to the development of interventions to support people with epilepsy to experience the best possible QOL. We present findings of a qualitative investigation exploring influences and processes on QOL for people with epilepsy. We describe the clinical, psychological, and social factors contributing to QOL. In particular, we focus on the value of the concept of resilience for understanding quality of life in epilepsy. Based on our analysis, we propose a model of resilience wherein four key component sets of factors interact to determine QOL. This model reflects the fluid nature of resilience that, we suggest, is subject to change based on shifts within the individual components and the interactions between them. The model offers a representation of the complex influences that act and interact to either mitigate or further compound the negative impacts of epilepsy on individual QOL.

Shifting schedules: the health effects of reorganizing shift work.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one fifth of workers are engaged in some kind of shift work. The harmful effects of shift work on the health and work-life balance of employees are well known. A range of organizational interventions has been suggested to address these negative effects. METHODS: This study undertook the systematic review (following Quality Of Reporting Of Meta [QUORUM] analyses guidelines) of experimental and quasi-experimental studies, from any country (in any language) that evaluated the effects on health and work-life balance of organizational-level interventions that redesign shift work schedules. Twenty-seven electronic databases (medical, social science, economic) were searched. Data extraction and quality appraisal were carried out by two independent reviewers. Narrative synthesis was performed. The review was conducted between October 2005 and November 2006. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were found relating to a variety of organizational interventions. No one type of intervention was found to be consistently harmful to workers. However, three types were found to have beneficial effects on health and work-life balance: (1) switching from slow to fast rotation, (2) changing from backward to forward rotation, and (3) self-scheduling of shifts. Improvements were usually at little or no direct organizational cost. However, there were concerns about the generalizability of the evidence, and no studies reported on impacts on health inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: This review reinforces the findings of epidemiologic and laboratory-based research by suggesting that certain organizational-level interventions can improve the health of shift workers, their work-life balance, or both. This evidence could be useful when designing interventions to improve the experience of shift work.