Epilepsy prevalence and socioeconomic deprivation in England

Abstract

SUMMARYObjective: Epilepsy is more prevalent in areas of greater socioeconomic deprivation; however, the factors that comprise this deprivation are not understood. We aimed to investigate the association between epilepsy, individual elements of deprivation, and geographic region in order to identify modifiable elements. Methods: Epilepsy prevalence was calculated via retrospective analysis of data recorded by general practitioners via the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The Index of Multiple Deprivation scores at Local Authority level for the entire population of England was employed. Epilepsy prevalence was evaluated for correlation against all seven indicators within the Indices of Multiple Deprivation. Data were analyzed including and excluding the city of London. Results: Of the 37,699,503 patients in this study, 304,331 were registered as having epilepsy (prevalence 8 per 1,000; range 4.3-11.6). Positive correlation was seen with total Index of Multiple Deprivation score (r = 0.468, p < 0.01); education skills and training (r = 0.665, p < 0.01); employment deprivation (r = 0.629, p < 0.01); health deprivation and disability (r = 0.617, p < 0.01); income deprivation (r = 0.358, p < 0.01); crime (r = 0.232, p < 0.01); but not living environment (r = 0.079, p = 0.08). Negative correlation was seen between epilepsy prevalence and barriers to housing and services (r = À0.415, p < 0.01). When the data were analyzed excluding London, all correlations were strengthened. Epilepsy prevalence in adults varies by 2.5-fold across England, from 4.3 per 1,000 in Kensington and Chelsea to 11.6 per 1,000 in Blackpool. Significance: This study shows a strong correlation between epilepsy prevalence and specific measures of socioeconomic deprivation. Many of these deprivation factors are potentially remediable. We hypothesize that people with epilepsy may move into urban areas and toward their general practitioner. This predominantly means an urban location but avoiding areas where the cost of living-particularly housing-is prohibitive, such as central London. The existing negative impact of epilepsy on employment and higher education may be exacerbated when people with epilepsy live in areas of greater socioeconomic deprivation.

Network, clinical and sociodemographic features of cognitive phenotypes in temporal lobe epilepsy

“…The possibility that early disadvantage contributed to smaller ICV in Generalized-CI cannot be ruled out. Population-based research has demonstrated higher rates of epilepsy in disadvantaged populations, the disadvantage not due to social drift ( Magnusson and Zelano, 2019 , Pickrell et al, 2015 , Steer et al, 2014 ), and racial and SES factors have been shown to influence features of epilepsy presentation ( Allen et al, 2018 , Allen et al, 2019 ). As disadvantage is known to impact cognition, brain and behavior in the general population, it appears important to more seriously consider these factors in the neuropsychology of epilepsy ( Baxendale and Heaney, 2011 ).…”

Health care cost associated with the use of enzyme-inducing and non-enzyme–active antiepileptic drugs in the UK: a long-term retrospective matched cohort study

“…For example, regional differences in the standard of epilepsy care have been noted in the UK [20, 21], and may relate to personal preferences of the GP, practice type, size, location and local formulary access to certain AEDs. There is also a known correlation between social deprivation and increased epilepsy prevalence [22]. Additional relevant factors may have been excluded from the propensity scoring owing to lack of information in CPRD data (e.g.…”

Social media in epilepsy: A quantitative and qualitative analysis

“…The societal impact of epilepsy has been wellstudied and documented in both print and other traditional media. For example, Steer et al found a strong correlation between the prevalence of epilepsy and socioeconomic deprivation [2]. Despite these findings, patients' disease experiences in addition to their desired care from the healthcare system vary greatly [3].…”