Children and adolescents with epilepsy in rehabilitation centers: A French prospective transversal study

Abstract

Introduction: The reason why some children and adolescent with epilepsy (CAWE) still challenge the "inclusive" educative policy needs to be explored.

Methods/patients: We conducted a transversal study in French medical, social, and educative rehab centers (MSERCs) dedicated to CAWE to describe the profile of 263 centers-involved (CI)-CAWE. Centers-involved CAWE were prospectively followed from September 2012 to August 2013. Medical, social, and educative rehab centers were dichotomized according to their care-provider agreement (i.e., CAWE of "moderate" (M) vs. "severe" (S) conditions). Clinical factors known to impact clinical outcome and quality of life (QoL) in epilepsy and four disabling conditions at risk to impact school life (i.e., cognitive and psychiatric/behavioral disorders, risk of physical hazards (i.e., refractory seizures with unpredictable loss of tone and/or awareness), and one or more seizure/week) were evaluated. The electronic chart of the French collaborative database (namely GRENAT) was used for data collection allowing comparison with the profile of 731 "normally integrated and schooled" (NIS)-CAWE extracted from GRENAT and matching for generation (i.e., born between 1988 and 2006).

Results: Centers-involved CAWE's profile was found, after adjustment, to be associated with clinical factors and disabling conditions reflecting the poorest clinical outcome and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) (all p < 0.001). A cutoff of two disabilities/child highly discriminated NIS-CAWE vs. CI-CAWE. Centers-involved CAWE of S-MSERCs were the most severe (all p < 0.001), and the type of cognitive disability (i.e., intellectual disability (ID) vs. specific learning disorders (SLD)) highly paralleled the types of MSERCs (S vs. M). Using a parent-informant questionnaire, the number of disabilities/child was found to correlate with both the evaluation of the impact of epilepsy (r = 0.47, p < 0.001) and the HR-QoL (r = 0.37, p < 0.001). A satisfactory social life was reported (83.8%) even after S vs. M dichotomization (77.2% vs. 94.7%; p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Multiple disabilities rather than epilepsy per se challenge the inclusive educative policy. Evaluation of disabilities could be the missing bridge to optimize this policy and understand its limits.

Keywords: Alternative cares; Children adolescents' epilepsy; Educational policy; Multiple disabilities; Prospective clinical study; Social behavior.