Narrative mini-review shows effective remote follow-up for pediatric epilepsy, indicating equity-focused oversight may improve outcomes.
Background Pediatric epilepsy care is often constrained by follow-up bottlenecks—travel burden, caregiver time loss, and limited pediatric neurology capacity—leading to fragmented management and preventable utilization. Methods: We conducted a narrative mini-review of studies and practice statements (2019–2025) identified in PubMed and Scopus, prioritizing pediatric populations and major guidelines relevant to tele-follow-up, adherence and refills, unplanned care, equity, privacy, data governance, and implementation; no meta-analysis was performed. Results Evidence indicates that, for established patients, video or telephone visits can safely support medication titration, adverse-effect checks, seizure-diary review, counseling, and care coordination, with performance broadly comparable to clinic visits for these tasks when used judiciously. Tele-follow-up is inappropriate for new diagnoses, acute neurologic change, or other red flags requiring examination and electroencephalography. Effective implementation relies on risk-stratified schedules, predefined escalation thresholds and time-to-action, nurse-led triage, and measured substitution rather than wholesale replacement of in-person care. Equity risks persist for families with low connectivity, low income, language barriers, or disability; mitigations include device and data subsidies, school-linked access points, multilingual materials, and privacy-by-design with developmentally appropriate consent and auditable safeguards. Conclusion Tele-follow-up is a feasible complement to clinic care that can reduce burden while maintaining quality when paired with transparent oversight. We propose a practical oversight approach using key performance indicators with equity stratifiers to monitor completion, adherence, and unplanned care, and outline research priorities on longer-term outcomes in under-connected populations, privacy impact evaluations, interoperability, and pragmatic trials with equity endpoints.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhong et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: