Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

The competency framework conferred no clinical benefit, compared to treatment as usual, in reducing seizure severity in adults with epilepsy and learning disability.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index > metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Howard Ring 1,2,3,*, James Howlett 4, Mark Pennington 5, Christopher Smith 1, Marcus Redley 1,3,6, Caroline Murphy 7, Roxanne Hook 1, Adam Platt 1, Nakita Gilbert 1, Elizabeth Jones 1,2, Joanna Kelly 7, Angela Pullen 8,9, Adrian Mander 4, Cam Donaldson 10, Simon Rowe 11, James Wason 7, Fiona Irvine 12

1 Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
3 National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) East of England, Cambridge, UK
4 Medical Research Council (MRC) Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK
5 King’s Health Economics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK
6 Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
7 King’s Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, London, UK
8 Epilepsy Action, Leeds, UK
9 NHS Leeds West Clinical Commissioning Group, Leeds, UK
10 Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
11 NHS Wakefield Clinical Commissioning Group, Wakefield, UK
12 School of Health and Population Science, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
* Corresponding author Email:

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.


If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document