Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 14, 2026
Author Spotlight: Exploring the Impact of Reduced Resistance Exercise Volume on Metabolic Health
Published on: December 1, 2023
Effectiveness of a multicomponent self-management intervention for adults with epilepsy (ZMILE study): A randomized
Loes A M Leenen1, Ben F M Wijnen2, Alfons G H Kessels3
1Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Research & Development, Academic Centre for Epileptology Kempenhaeghe Maastricht UMC+, The Netherlands; Department of Neurology, Academic Centre for Epileptology Kempenhaeghe Maastricht UMC+, The Netherlands.
Background:
The objective of the ZMILE study was to compare the effectiveness of a multicomponent self-management intervention (MCI) with care as usual (CAU) in adult patients with epilepsy (PWE) over a six-month period.
Methods:
Participants (PWE & relative) were randomized into intervention or CAU groups. Self-report questionnaires were used to measure disease-specific self-efficacy as the primary outcome measure and general self-efficacy, adherence, seizure severity, emotional functioning, quality of life, proactive coping, and side-effects of antiepileptic drugs (AED) as secondary outcome measures. Instruments used at baseline and during a six-month follow-up period were the following: disease-specific self-efficacy (Epilepsy Self-Efficacy Scale [ESES], General Self-Efficacy Scale [GSES]); adherence (Medication Adherence Scale [MARS] and Medication Event Monitoring System [MEMS]); seizure severity (National Hospital Seizure Severity Scale [NHS3]); emotional well-being (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]); quality of life (Quality of Life in Epilepsy [QOLIE-31P]); proactive coping (Utrecht Proactive Coping Competence [UPCC]); and side-effects of antiepileptic drugs [SIDAED]. Multilevel analyses were performed, and baseline differences were corrected by inclusion of covariates in the analyses.
Results:
In total, 102 PWE were included in the study, 52 of whom were in the intervention group. On the SIDAED and on three of the quality of life subscales QOLIE-31P, a significant difference was found (p<0.05) in the intervention group. Self-efficacy, however, showed no significant differences between the MCI and the CAU groups. None of the other outcome measures showed any significant difference between the two groups.
Significance:
Although we found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome measure, disease-specific self-efficacy, this MCI could prove promising, since we found improvement in some domains of quality of life in epilepsy scale and a decrease in AED side-effects in the MCI group compared with the CAU group.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:20Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:03Nursing Interventions I: Taxonomy of Nursing Interventions
A nursing intervention is a treatment or action based on scientific concepts and knowledge from the nursing, behavioral, and physical sciences. Identifying and prioritizing nursing interventions based on the desired outcome...
01:29Appendicitis-II: Diagnostic Studies and Management
Diagnosing Appendicitis
It requires a multifaceted approach, starting with a detailed physical examination to pinpoint the location and nature of the pain and identify any associated symptoms. Laboratory tests play a crucial role. A complete Blood Count (CBC) typically reveals leukocytosis (an increased number of...
01:12Trial and Error and Algorithm
01:11Clinical Trials: Overview