A tool designed to help adults with epilepsy create a tailored self-management action plan met the study's prespecified feasibility criteria in a small clinic evaluation. The finding supports moving MINDSET 2.0 to a future randomized controlled trial, but it does not show that the tool improves clinical outcomes.
MINDSET 2.0 was assessed for producing that plan, recommending self-management programs and identifying non-medical drivers of health. In this context, feasibility was a practical question: did its predefined rules produce the expected recommendations, did participants find it acceptable, and could the assessment fit into clinical workflow?
A narrow first test
Seven adults with epilepsy completed the single-group feasibility study across six neurology clinics in Arizona and Texas. The study ran for six months, from March to August 2022, with four participants from Arizona and three from Texas. Because it was a single-group feasibility study, its purpose was to assess whether the approach was workable before testing clinical effects.
The tool's programmed and generated recommendations matched in 100% of cases. That result shows that the predefined decision rules were executed as specified. It does not show that the recommendations were clinically effective, appropriate for each participant or acted on.
The readiness bar was at least 70% agreement, with acceptability and practical workflow integration also required. Researchers used descriptive statistics and percentage agreement for participant ratings, while neurologist ratings were summarized descriptively.
Patients liked the tool, with a caveat
Among six usability respondents, acceptability, interface likeability, credibility and recommendation appeal each received 100% agreement. Duration was judged just right by 83.3% of respondents.
The study also reported that 100% of respondents found the information helpful for epilepsy self-management. But three participants, or 50%, needed help using MINDSET 2.0.
Among participants who reviewed the recommended self-management programs, 17% considered them appropriate and 33% considered them helpful. No participant reported prior exposure to the other self-management programs listed in the study.
The clinic trade-off
Four neurologists participated in the study, and three completed the MINDSET 2.0 rating scale. All three viewed the tool favorably for the thoroughness of its information and for patient communication. Their views differed on ease of use, accuracy and the effect on visit time.
Integrating the assessment into routine neurology practice may require approximately 30 additional minutes in clinic. That added time is a practical issue for any future evaluation of how the tool fits into routine care.
What the study still cannot answer
The authors draw a clear line around the algorithm result. A perfect match between programmed and generated recommendations verifies software execution only; it should not be read as evidence of clinical effectiveness, appropriateness or patient engagement.
The study assessed a single visit and did not evaluate later linkage, enrollment or retention in recommended programs or community services. It therefore cannot answer whether people went on to use the support the tool suggested.
The study met its feasibility criteria sufficiently to justify further evaluation in a randomized controlled trial, but the current findings do not establish clinical benefit. The seven-person sample also limits how broadly the findings can be applied.
The human study received institutional review-board approval, and participants provided written informed consent. It was funded by a Special Interest Project Grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Managing Epilepsy Well Collaborating Center, and the authors declared no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Paper data and sources
Original title: MINDSET 2.0: feasibility of digital decision support for epilepsy self-management
Authors: Sepulveda R, Shegog R, Czerniak K et al.
Journal/Repository: Frontiers in neurology
Status: Peer-reviewed
First online: 2026-10-08
DOI: Not available
Original paper · Full text