Patient-level interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-summary.

BACKGROUND: Disease and disability from alcohol use disproportionately impact people in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While varied interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol use in high-income countries, their efficacy in LMICs has not been assessed. This systematic review describes current published literature on patient-level alcohol interventions in LMICs and specifically describes clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce alcohol use in LMICs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In accordance with PRISMA, we performed a systematic review using an electronic search strategy from January 1, 1995 to December 1, 2020. Title, abstract, as well as full-text screening and extraction were performed in duplicate. A meta-summary was performed on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated alcohol-related outcomes. We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, WHO Global Health Library, and PsycINFO. Articles that evaluated patient-level interventions targeting alcohol use and alcohol-related harm in LMICs were eligible for inclusion. No studies were excluded based on language. After screening 5,036 articles, 117 articles fit our inclusion criteria, 75 of which were RCTs. Of these RCTs, 93% were performed in 13 middle-income countries, while 7% were from 2 low-income countries. These RCTs evaluated brief interventions (24, defined as any intervention ranging from advice to counseling, lasting less than 1 hour per session up to 4 sessions), psychotherapy or counseling (15, defined as an interaction with a counselor longer than a brief intervention or that included a psychotherapeutic component), health promotion and education (20, defined as an intervention encouraged individuals' agency of taking care of their health), or biologic treatments (19, defined as interventions where the biological function of alcohol use disorder (AUD) as the main nexus of intervention) with 3 mixing categories of intervention types. Due to high heterogeneity of intervention types, outcome measures, and follow-up times, we did not conduct meta-analysis to compare and contrast studies, but created a meta-summary of all 75 RCT studies. The most commonly evaluated intervention with the most consistent positive effect was a brief intervention; similarly, motivational interviewing (MI) techniques were most commonly utilized among the diverse array of interventions evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Our review demonstrated numerous patient-level interventions that have the potential to be effective in LMICs, but further research to standardize interventions, populations, and outcome measures is necessary to accurately assess their effectiveness. Brief interventions and MI techniques were the most commonly evaluated and had the most consistent positive effect on alcohol-related outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol Registry: PROSPERO CRD42017055549.

Stigma reduction interventions for epilepsy: A systematized literature review.

OBJECTIVE: Epilepsy is a disease that is stigmatized globally. Several studies have introduced sensitization efforts to reduce stigma towards people with epilepsy (PWE) in various settings. Although sensitization efforts have shown some evidence of improved attitudes towards epilepsy, progress has been limited. This systematized literature review summarizes the existing literature concerning interventions that reduce stigma towards PWE. By conducting an overview of existing interventions, we aimed to consolidate knowledge and outcomes of existing efforts as well as highlight gaps and directions for future interventions. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Embase for English-language studies published between January 1, 1970 and November 15, 2017 that focused on stigma reduction strategies for PWE in any global setting. Studies were included if they described a stigma reduction intervention for epilepsy. Studies were excluded if they were reviews, editorials, conference proceedings, abstracts, or did not discuss a stigma reduction intervention. We thematically grouped studies based on type(s) of intervention(s) addressed and summarized interventions, outcome measures, and results for each study included in the review. RESULTS: Of the 1975 initial citations, 32 studies met our inclusion criteria. Interventions clustered into four broad categories including public awareness interventions, policy-based interventions, school-based interventions, and interventions that targeted PWE themselves as well as their caregivers and peers. Efficacy of these interventions as reported by the authors was mixed. Many studies did not use validated outcome measures to assess stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Although intervention efforts have been made towards epilepsy stigma reduction at many levels, stigma towards and discrimination against PWE prevail worldwide. About 75% of the studies included in this review were conducted in high-income countries (HICs) despite the disproportional need in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Furthermore, robust outcome measures to assess efficacy in stigma reduction for interventions are lacking, calling into question the validity of reported outcomes for both positive and null findings. Therefore, more work is needed in both developing effective stigma reduction strategies, especially in LMICs, and validating tools to measure their efficacy. This article is part of the Special Issue "The Intersection of Culture, Resources, and Disease: Epilepsy Care in Uganda".

Stakeholder views of the practical and cultural barriers to epilepsy care in Uganda.

OBJECTIVE: Epilepsy is one of the most prevalent, treatable neurological diseases globally. In sub-Saharan Africa, people with epilepsy (PWE) frequently seek treatment from traditional or pastoral healers, who are more accessible than biomedical care providers. This often contributes to the substantial time delay in obtaining adequate biomedical care for these patients. In Uganda, the few biomedical providers who can treat epilepsy cannot meet the great need for epilepsy care. Additionally, patients are often hesitant to seek biomedical care, often preferring the easily accessible and trusted sociocultural treatment options. This study sought to elucidate the barriers to biomedical care for PWE as well as identify potential solutions to overcome these barriers from various stakeholder perspectives. METHODS: This study used qualitative research methods. Semistructured interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with four major stakeholder groups: PWE or family members of PWE, neurologists and psychiatrists, traditional healers, and pastoral healers. All interviews and focus group discussions that were in English were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Those that were not in English were translated live and audio recorded. A translator later translated the non-English portion of audio recording to ensure proper interpretation. Two independent coders coded the dataset and conducted an inter-rater reliability (IRR) assessment to ensure reliable coding of the data. Thematic analysis was then performed to discern themes from the data and compare nuances between each of the study design groups. RESULTS: Participants discussed several different causes of epilepsy ranging from spiritual to biological causes, often incorporating elements of both. Commonly endorsed spiritual causes of epilepsy included witchcraft and ancestral spirits. Commonly endorsed biological causes included genetics, fever, malaria, and brain injury. For patients and families, beliefs about the cause of epilepsy often played a role in whom they chose to seek treatment from. Three major barriers to biomedical care were discussed: practical barriers, medical infrastructure barriers, and barriers related to stigma. Practical barriers related to issues such as transportation, cost of medical care, and distance to the nearest healthcare facility. Under medical infrastructure, drug stock-outs and lack of access to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were the most consistent problems stated among patients. Stigma was heavily discussed and brought up by nearly every participant. Additionally, three significant solutions to improving epilepsy care in Uganda were highlighted by participants: collaboration among treatment providers, community sensitization efforts to address stigma, and building medical infrastructure. Within building infrastructure, all participant types, except traditional healers, proposed the development of an epilepsy clinic designed to specifically treat epilepsy. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, there are four critical interventions that should be considered for improving epilepsy care in Uganda: the creation of dedicated epilepsy clinics, infrastructure strengthening to address medication stock-outs, community outreach programs for sensitization, and collaboration between biomedical providers and traditional healers. This article is part of the Special Issue "The Intersection of Culture, Resources, and Disease: Epilepsy Care in Uganda".

Barriers to biomedical care for people with epilepsy in Uganda: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: Epilepsy, a neurological disorder with effective biomedical treatment, remains largely untreated in Uganda. Potential reasons for this treatment gap (TG) include limited access to trained providers and clinics, social stigmata of seizures, cultural beliefs, or lack of public understanding of epilepsy as a treatable condition. The current study aimed to formally evaluate barriers faced by people with epilepsy (PWE) in Uganda when seeking biomedical care. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 435 participants drawn from a community prevalence study were enrolled. We included participants reporting a history of recurrent seizures suggestive of epilepsy, who completed a survey about barriers to obtaining care for their symptoms. Principal axis factor analysis (PFA) using a promax rotation was conducted for data reduction. Frequencies of barrier factors were compared across those who did not seek care for epilepsy (n = 228), those who sought care from biomedical facilities (n = 166), and those who sought care from a traditional or pastoral healer (n = 41). RESULTS: The PFA yielded a five-factor solution: 1) logistical and actual costs; 2) treatment effectiveness; 3) influence of the opinion of others; 4) doctors' care; and 5) contextual factors impacting decision-making. Variables related to logistical and actual costs were most endorsed. Comparison of groups by care sought did not reveal a difference in endorsement of factors, with the exception that those who sought biomedical care were more likely to endorse factors related to doctors' care compared with those that sought care from traditional or pastoral healers (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: People with repetitive seizures in Uganda report several barriers to obtaining biomedical care in Uganda, with those related to practical and actual costs endorsed the most. It is imperative that interventions developed to reduce the TG in Uganda consider these practical issues to improve access to effective epilepsy care. This article is part of the Special Issue "The Intersection of Culture, Resources, and Disease: Epilepsy Care in Uganda.

Epilepsy beliefs and misconceptions among patient and community samples in Uganda.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to characterize and compare the attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions about epilepsy across community and patient cohorts in Uganda. METHODS: This was a descriptive study utilizing two samples: a randomly selected, national survey community sample and a hospital-based patient sample of people with epilepsy (PWE) and their caregivers attending clinic settings in Kampala and Mbarara, Uganda for epilepsy care. Both samples were surveyed about their beliefs about epilepsy, its treatment, and people who have the illness. Multivariate linear regression was used to examine group differences and variables associated with specific beliefs. RESULTS: Among the 15,818 community survey participants who participated in this study, 435 study participants reported symptoms suggestive of recurrent seizures, and all 626 subjects in the hospital-based sample had confirmed epilepsy. Results revealed significant differences across groups in their endorsement of epilepsy as a contagion; 37% of people in the community unaffected by epilepsy, and 39% of people with suspected epilepsy who did not seek care believed that epilepsy was contagious by touch, in contrast to 8% of PWE or their caregivers attending regular hospital-based care. Higher educational attainment and income, and seeking regular hospital-based medical care were associated with less endorsement of epilepsy as a contagion, while age, education, income, area of residence, and presence of seizure symptoms, were significant predictors of support or belief in the basic rights of PWE. Study participants within the community who screened negative for seizures placed the most restrictions on rights for PWE. To varying degrees, the samples all endorsed the effectiveness of allopathic, traditional, and religious providers, and the use of pharmaceutical drugs, traditional rituals and herbs, and prayer. CONCLUSIONS: People with epilepsy who are attending biomedical care for routine epilepsy care think differently about epilepsy, its treatment, and the rights of those with the disease than the general population. Within the community setting, more erroneous beliefs and negative attitudes about epilepsy and PWE persist, and they not only contribute to stigma but also interfere with the patients' health-seeking behavior. Further confounding the care of PWE, the pluralistic healthcare system in Uganda is evident in endorsements spanning biomedical, traditional, and religious treatment methods. Focused awareness campaigns utilizing local epilepsy societies are needed to promote epilepsy health literacy, to favorably impact acceptance and opportunities for PWE in Uganda, and to facilitate efficient uptake of biomedical care. This article is part of the Special Issue "The Intersection of Culture, Resources, and Disease: Epilepsy Care in Uganda".

Pluralistic and singular causal attributions for epilepsy in Uganda.

OBJECTIVE: In Uganda, causal attributions for epilepsy reflect a variety of beliefs and impact care-seeking behavior, perpetuate stigma, and undermine the effectiveness of interventions to narrow the epilepsy treatment gap. The objective of this study was to characterize beliefs about seizure etiology to gain a better understanding of how epilepsy is conceptualized in the community in order to inform culturally appropriate educational policies and interventions. METHODS: In a community-based study, 15,383 participants were surveyed about beliefs related to 15 potential causes for epilepsy. Principal axis factor analysis (PFA) was performed to identify causative factors and then utilized to classify singular versus pluralistic belief systems related to epilepsy etiology. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Mann-Whitney U-tests were conducted to examine the differences in background characteristics across the etiology belief groups. RESULTS: Three main causative factors emerged from the PFA: biological, sociospiritual, and biospiritual. Among those endorsing at least one factor (n = 13,036), the biological factor was endorsed most frequently as a potential cause for epilepsy (88.0%), followed by the sociospiritual (63.4%), then biospiritual (47.6%). Review of the patterns of endorsement found that only 22.2% endorsed the biological factor alone, 6.7% the sociospiritual factor alone, and 2.8% the biospiritual factor alone (total 31.7%). The remainder endorsed a combination of two or all three factors as being potentially causal, and most (65.7%) endorsed a pluralistic combination inclusive of a biological etiology. Group comparisons showed that endorsing only the biological factor was associated with the highest levels of education (p < 0.01), the pluralistic group had the highest ratio of people in the household who needed assistance to those that could provide aid (p < 0.01), and there were significant differences in income across specific groups (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Pluralistic attributions for epilepsy are common in Uganda, with the majority of community members drawing from biomedical and traditional concepts to construct complex explanations for seizures that transcend discrete belief categories traditionally depicted in the literature. These findings emphasize the need to understand cultural beliefs about epilepsy in order to design contextually specific interventions and education programs, which respect the fundamental beliefs and values of the community. This article is part of the Special Issue "The Intersection of Culture, Resources, and Disease: Epilepsy Care in Uganda".