Results of screening with the brief headache screen compared with a modified IDMigraine.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic migraine and chronic daily headache syndromes have greater morbidity than patients with episodic migraine, and are less frequently diagnosed. A screening tool which identifies daily headache syndromes as well as migraine would promote more patients receiving appropriate treatment, including prophylaxis. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of data obtained to evaluate the prevalence of somatic symptoms in primary care patients was conducted on a convenience sample of primary care patients who completed the Patient Health Questionnaire portion of the PRIME-MD (Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders). Patients who endorsed the symptom of headache were asked to complete the Brief Headache Screen (BHS), a 4-item screening tool, supplemented by 3 clinical questions (nausea, light sensitivity, and noise sensitivity). The data obtained allowed a post-hoc comparison of the BHS with a modified version of the screening tool, IDMigraine(TM) (IDM(TM)). Diagnostic interviews were performed on patients whose diagnoses differed by the 2 screening methods, and on patients who screened positive for daily headache on BHS. RESULTS: Of the 1000 patients who completed the PRIME-MD, 302 (30.2%) indicated headache as a concern, and there were sufficient data for both the BHS and IDM(TM) for 259. There was substantial concordance between the 2 instruments with 82.6% agreement in identified migraine (95% confidence interval: 77.8%-87.4%). The BHS screened positive for migraine in an additional 15.1% of patients who were not identified by IDM(TM), whereas the IDM(TM) identified an additional 2.3% of patients. Of the 173 which both tools recognized as migraine, the BHS identified 42.8% as having a daily headache syndrome (chronic migraine: 23.1%; episodic migraine + chronic tension-type headache [CTTH]: 19.7%). BHS also identified 7 non-migraine patients as having CTTH alone. Diagnostic interviews confirmed that 6/18 (33%) of BHS+ but IDM-, and one of 2 (50%) patients BHS-/IDM+ met full criteria for migraine. Additionally, interviews confirmed the diagnoses of 85.4% of those patients who the BHS identified with daily headache and 67% of those who were identified as medication overuse headache. CONCLUSION: The BHS and a modified IDM(TM) are concordant in screening for migraine in 82.6% of a primary care population who endorsed the symptom of headache. However, the BHS screens effectively not only for migraine but also for chronic daily headache and medication overuse. A screening paradigm based on headache frequency and the frequency of medication use can rapidly and sensitively identify migraine, daily headache syndromes, and medication overuse. This paradigm may improve clinical care by identifying patients who merit preventive as well as acute therapy for migraine.     

Rapid and sensitive paradigm for screening patients with headache in primary care settings

OBJECTIVE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of a brief headache screening paradigm for primary care clinicians. BACKGROUND: Migraine and drug rebound headache are disabling primary headache disorders. Both are underdiagnosed and undertreated. A method for rapid screening of migraine, drug rebound headache, and other daily headache syndromes would be useful. The Brief Headache Screen uses 3 questions-the frequency of severe (disabling) headache, other (mild) headache, and use of symptomatic medication-to generate diagnoses. METHODS: The Brief Headache Screen was evaluated in an emergency department, a family practice department, and a referral headache clinic. Diagnoses from the Brief Headache Screen were compared to diagnoses of trained researchers and headache specialists. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-nine patients were screened and interviewed. The criterion of episodic severe (disabling) headache correctly identified migraine in 136 (93%) of 146 patients with episodic migraine and 154 (78%) of 197 patients with chronic migraine, with a specificity for any migraine (episodic or chronic) of 32 (63%) of 51. The inclusion of episodic or daily severe headache identified migraine in 100% of patients with chronic migraine. Only 6 (1.7%) of 343 patients with migraine were not identified by severe (disabling) headache. The combination of severe and mild headache frequency was sensitive to daily headache syndromes in 218 (94%) of 232 patients with a specificity of 87 (54%) of 162. Medication overuse was correctly identified in 146 (86%) of 169 patients with a specificity of 22 (79%) of 28. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of severe (disabling) and mild headaches and use of symptomatic medications, rapidly and sensitively screens for migraine, daily headache syndromes, and medication overuse. The use of this paradigm in primary care settings may improve the recognition of these important headache syndromes.     

Indicators of a major depressive episode in primary care patients with a chief complaint of headache

OBJECTIVE: To identify the indicators of major depressive episode (MDE) in primary care patients with a chief complaint of headache. BACKGROUND: MDE is very frequent among headache patients in primary care. However, primary care physicians often fail to recognize the coexistence of MDE. METHODS: A total of 177 consecutive new adult patients who visited 19 primary care clinics from January 2002 to December 2002 with a chief complaint of headache were enrolled in the study. All subjects completed a self-report questionnaire that included questions regarding the duration and severity of their headaches, changes in headache severity, and other symptoms. The questionnaire also identified distressed high utilizers (patients who consulted different doctors for the same episode of an illness, without being referred). MDE was diagnosed using a module of the mini international neuropsychiatric interview (MINI). To identify potential indicators of depression, both univariate analysis and multiple logistic regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: Forty-five of 177 patients (25.4%) fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for MDE. Univariate analysis revealed that severe headache, longer duration of headaches, multiple somatic symptoms, and being a distressed high utilizer were associated with MDE. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that patients with headaches lasting 6 months or longer and those with multiple somatic symptoms were more likely to be suffering from MDE (adjusted odds ratios: 3.1, 95% CI: 1.7-10.6; and 3.9, 95% CI: 1.2-8.1, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: MDE is highly prevalent in headache patients visiting a primary care setting. Multiple somatic symptoms and longer duration (> or =6 months) of headaches are particularly useful indicators of MDE.     

The impact of education on the diagnostic accuracy of tension-type headache and migraine: a prospective study

General practitioners (GPs) diagnose and treat headache in primary care settings. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of a 2-day headache education programme for GPs primarily on diagnostic accuracy. The education programme included theoretical lectures and face-to-face patient evaluation with headache specialists. Three GPs evaluated headache patients before and after the programme. Each GP was planned to interview a total of 60 patients (30 before, 30 after the programme). All patients were evaluated by headache specialists following evaluation by the GPs. A total of 189 patients were included in this study. Diagnostic accuracy increased from 56.3% to 81.0% after the headache education programme (P < 0.001), which also significantly improved the choice of proper treatment (P = 0.043). The headache education programme for GPs significantly improved diagnostic accuracy in patients with tension-type headache and the choice of proper treatment. Such education programmes can be standardized and given to GPs working in the primary care setting. These programmes can be arranged locally by the universities and might have a favourable impact on the diagnosis and treatment of headache.     

An expert system for headache diagnosis: the Computerized Headache Assessment tool (CHAT)

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a highly prevalent chronic disorder associated with significant morbidity. Chronic daily headache syndromes, while less common, are less likely to be recognized, and impair quality of life to an even greater extent than episodic migraine. A variety of screening and diagnostic tools for migraine have been proposed and studied. Few investigators have developed and evaluated computerized programs to diagnose headache. OBJECTIVES: To develop and determine the accuracy and utility of a computerized headache assessment tool (CHAT). CHAT was designed to identify all of the major primary headache disorders, distinguish daily from episodic types, and recognize medication overuse. METHODS: CHAT was developed using an expert systems approach to headache diagnosis, with initial branch points determined by headache frequency and duration. Appropriate clinical criteria are presented relevant to brief and longer-lasting headaches. CHAT was posted on a web site using Microsoft active server pages and a SQL-server database server. A convenience sample of patients who presented to the adult urgent care department with headache, and patients in a family practice waiting room, were solicited to participate. Those who completed the on-line questionnaire were contacted for a diagnostic interview. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five patients completed CHAT and 117 completed a diagnostic interview. CHAT correctly identified 35/35 (100%) patients with episodic migraine and 42/49 (85.7%) of patients with transformed migraine. CHAT also correctly identified 11/11 patients with chronic tension-type headache, 2/2 with episodic tension-type headache, and 1/1 with episodic cluster headache. Medication overuse was correctly recognized in 43/52 (82.7%). The most common misdiagnoses by CHAT were seen in patients with transformed migraine or new daily persistent headache. Fifty patients were referred to their primary care physician and 62 to the headache clinic. Of 29 patients referred to the PCP with a confirmed diagnosis of migraine, 25 made a follow-up appointment, the PCP diagnosed migraine in 19, and initiated migraine-specific therapy or prophylaxis in 17. CONCLUSION: The described expert system displays high diagnostic accuracy for migraine and other primary headache disorders, including daily headache syndromes and medication overuse. As part of a disease management program, CHAT led to patients receiving appropriate diagnoses and therapy. Limitations of the system include patient willingness to utilize the program, introducing such a process into the culture of medical care, and the difficult distinction of transformed migraine.     

Headache patients in the emergency department of a Greek tertiary care hospital

The aim of this study was to record the demographic and epidemiological data on adult patients with headache who attend the emergency department (ED) and the diagnoses that made by the neurologists in the ED of a tertiary care hospital in metropolitan Thessaloniki (Greece). In an open prospective study, demographic and epidemiological data were collected on all patients who reported headache (as chief complaint or not) and presented to the ED of Papageorgiou Hospital between August 2007 and July 2008. Headache patients accounted for 1.3% of all ED patients and for 15.5% of patients primarily referred to the ED neurologist. Tension type headache was the most frequent diagnosis, followed by secondary headaches and migraine. The large number of patients without final ED diagnosis and ward admission for further evaluation sheds a light on the immense workload of Greek ED physicians. Furthermore, we found evidence for the misuse of Emergency Medical Services by chronic headache patients. These findings indicate shortcomings in the pre-hospital (primary care) management of headache patients in the Greek National Health System to an extent unreported so far.     

Impact of a group-based model of disease management for headache

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of a group-based model of disease management for patients with headache. BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the acute and preventive treatment of migraine, many patients with headache remain misdiagnosed and undertreated. Models of care that incorporate principles of disease management may improve headache care. DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prospective, open-label, observational study. Patients with headache were referred by physicians or identified from emergency department records. Patients attended a group session led by a registered nurse practitioner, and later had follow-up consultation. Charts and computer records were reviewed to document triptan costs and headache-related visits for 6 months before and after the intervention. Changes in headache frequency and severity were assessed. RESULTS: Triptan costs for 264 patients and chart review for 250 were available. Six-month triptan costs increased $5423 US dollars(19%), headache-related visits were reduced by 32%, and headache-related emergency department visits were reduced by 49%. Severe headache frequency was reduced in 62 (86%) of 72 patients who initially had severe headaches more than 2 days per week. Patients identified by emergency department screening accounted for 21% of the study group, 31% of the baseline triptan costs, and 46% of the baseline visits. For the entire study group, reduced visits yielded a net savings of $18,757 US dollars despite increased triptan costs. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of this group-based model produced a reduction in emergency department and clinic visits, significant clinical improvement, a small increase in pharmacy costs, and overall cost reduction. The greatest improvement in each outcome measure was seen in patients most severely afflicted at baseline. Our results suggest that the principles of disease management may be applied effectively to a headache population, with a positive financial impact on a managed care organization.     

The headache management trial: a randomized study of coordinated care

Context.— Headache is a common, disabling disorder that is frequently not well managed in general clinical practice. Objective.— To determine if patients cared for in a coordinated headache management program would achieve reduced headache disability compared with patients in usual care. Design.— A randomized controlled trial of headache management vs usual care. Setting.— Three distinctly different practice sites: an academic internal medicine practice located in a major east coast city, a staff‐model managed care organization located in a major west coast city, and a community practice in a medium‐sized city in the southeast. Patients.— Individuals 21 years of age or older with chronic tension‐type, migraine, or mixed etiology headache and a Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score greater than 5, not receiving treatment from a neurologist or headache clinic currently or within the previous 6 months and with an intention to continue general medical care at their current location and to continue their present health insurance coverage for the next 12 months. Interventions.— Active intervention is a headache management program consisting of: (1) a class specifically designed to inform patients about headache types, triggers, and treatment options; (2) diagnosis and treatment by a professional especially trained in headache care (based on US Headache Consortium guidelines); and (3) proactive follow‐up by a case manager. Participation lasted 6 months. Control patients received usual care from their primary care providers. Main Outcome Measures.— The primary efficacy measure reported in this article is a comparison of MIDAS scores of headache disability between the intervention group and the control group at 6 months. Secondary measures were response at 12 months, general health and quality of life, and satisfaction with headache care. Results.— The intervention improved (ie, decreased) MIDAS scores by 7.0 points (95% confidence interval 2.9 to 11.1) more than the control (P = .008) at 6 months. The difference was not affected by site (P = .59 for clinic by intervention interaction), and a trend toward persistent benefit at 12 months (mean difference in improvement 6.8 points, 95% confidence interval ?.3 to 13.9, P = .06) was observed. Quality of life and satisfaction with headache treatment were similarly improved. Conclusions.— Coordinated headache management significantly improved outcomes for patients who, despite contact with the healthcare system for headache, had substantial unmet needs. The intervention in this trial can be implemented practically in a wide range of settings with the expectation that meaningful improvements will accrue.     

Evaluation and Treatment of Headache Patients in the Emergency Department: A Survey.

SYNOPSIS
Patients with headache represent a common diagnostic and treatment challenge for health care providers in the emergency department. The therapeutic options continue to grow, yet many studies imply that narcotics continue to be a frequently chosen treatment. In this retrospective cross-sectional survey, the evaluation and treatment patterns of patients presenting to an academic medical center emergency department with a primary diagnosis of headache were analyzed. Headache disorders accounted for 1.7% of all visits to the emergency department. Migraine headache was the most common headache diagnosis representing 60% of headache visits followed by headache of no obvious source at 25%. Narcotics were the most common treatment employed (180 patient-visits) in all patients and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents were the second most common agent used (86 patient visits). Narcotics were also the most common therapy in migraine headache patients (152 patient-visits) while ergotamines were used in less than one-third of patient-visits (36 patient-visits). Therapy of headache patients in the emergency department continues to rely on narcotics. Methods of interrupting the dependence on narcotics need to be explored if newer non-narcotic therapies are to be successful.     

Rizatriptan <Emphasis Type="Italic">vs.</Emphasis> ibuprofen in migraine: a randomised placebo-controlled trial

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of rizatriptan and ibuprofen in migraine. The study was a randomised placebo-controlled trial in a tertiary care teaching hospital. Migraine patients with <8 attacks/months were included. One hundred and fifty-five migraine patients were randomised to rizatriptan 10 mg (53), ibuprofen 400 mg (52) and placebo (50). Efficacy was assessed by headache relief, and headache freedom at 2 h and 24 h. Two-hour headache relief, was noted in 73% in rizatriptan, 53.8% in ibuprofen and 8% in placebo groups. Headache freedom was achieved in 37.7% in rizatriptan, 30.8% in ibuprofen and 2% in placebo groups. Rizatriptan was superior to ibuprofen and placebo in relieving headache at 2 h but not at 24 h. Side effects were noted in 9 patients in rizatriptan, 8 in ibuprofen and 3 in placebo, all of which were nonsignificant. Rizatriptan and ibuprofen are superior to placebo. Rizatriptan is superior to ibuprofen in relieving headache, associated symptoms and functional disability.     

Evaluating HIV-Infected Patients With Headache: Who Needs Computed Tomography?

OBJECTIVE: To empirically test a clinical prediction rule for evaluating HIV-infected patients complaining of headache and to identify those at low risk for intracranial mass lesion who do not need immediate computed tomography of the head. DESIGN: Two retrospective clinical cohorts of HIV-infected patients clinically evaluated for headache. METHODS: To describe the headache clinical outcomes, medical records were abstracted from all HIV-infected patients evaluated for headache with computed tomography of the head at two urban hospitals. Patients were categorized as low, intermediate, or high risk based on clinical criteria (focal neurological signs, altered mental status, history of seizure) and immune status (CD4 lymphocytes < or =200 microL). Records were abstracted from a second unselected cohort of HIV-infected outpatients with headache who were all treated and followed in primary care (N=101). RESULTS: Of 101 unselected HIV-infected outpatients followed in primary care after headache, 1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0% to 6%) had a treatable intracranial lesion. Of 364 HIV-infected patients with headache sent for evaluation with computed tomography of the head, the rate of any abnormality was zero in the low-risk group (95% CI, 0% to 10%; n=35); 9% in the intermediate-risk group (95% CI, 2% to 16%; n=242); and 21% in the high-risk group (95% CI, 12% to 29%; n=87). CONCLUSION: Most HIV-infected patients with headache may be treated with analgesics and followed up clinically. Those without focal neurological signs, altered mental status, seizure, or decreased CD4 lymphocytes are unlikely to have intracranial mass lesions.     

A CARE pathway in medication–overuse headache: the experience of the Headache Centre in Pavia

Medication–overuse headache (MOH) is one of the headache forms that most frequently prompts patients to consult a specialist headache centre. The prevaence of this form in the general population is approximately 1–2%. Around 40% of patients seen at headache centres present with a chronic form of headache and 80% of this chronic headache patients make excessive use of symptomatic drugs. MOH shows a clinical improvement, accompained by a reduction in the consumption of analgesic drugs, if patients are submitted to detoxification therapy. But detoxification is only the first stage in a long and complex course of care and global approach demands adequate follow–up visit to prevent early relapses. At the Headache Centre of the C. Mondino Institute of Neurologt in Pavia, a course of care (CARE) has been developed for the complente management of patients with MOH both during Hospitalization and durimg the subsequent follow–up period. CARE IS designed to trace the clinical, psychopathological and pharmacological profile of MOH in the short–, medium– and long–term; to look for factors possibility predictive of relapse; to assess the direct costs linked to overuse–headache in the year leading up to and following detoxification; and to evaluate disability, in terms of working days lost, before and after detoxification.     

Quantifying headache symptoms and other headache features from chart notes

OBJECTIVES: To describe a method for quantifying headache symptoms/features in family practice charts for patients diagnosed with headache NOS (not otherwise specified, ICD-9: 784) and to determine the share of NOS headache diagnoses with clinical data strongly suggestive of migraine or probable migraine headache. BACKGROUND: Headache is one of the most common pain symptoms that brings patients to a family physician. However, the majority of headache sufferers do not receive a specific headache diagnosis when they visit physicians. METHODS: We examined the chart notes of 454 patients exclusively diagnosed with one or more ICD-9 coded headache NOS diagnoses from July 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999 at a large suburban, university-affiliated practice. We developed a template containing 20 headache items combining International Headache Society diagnostic criteria and additional headache symptoms/features, and decision rules for coding symptoms/features and collected data from patient charts. We then developed decision rules and reclassified NOS headaches into categories strongly suggestive of migraine, probable migraine headache, or other diagnosis. Our main outcome measure is the consistency in the application of decision rules and diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: With this method we estimate 3 in 10 (29%) headache NOS patients may have had migraine (8%) or probable migraine headache (21%). Reclassified migraine visits averaged 6.5 migraine symptoms and reclassified probable migraine headache visits 4.7 migraine symptoms. Logistic regression analysis supports the consistency of diagnostic criteria for classifying headache based on coded symptoms/features--our model correctly predicted 96% of visits. Evidence of physical examination was recorded at 75% of visits suggesting that physician attention is focused on elimination of secondary headache. CONCLUSIONS: We think the use of our rigorous procedures reveals that a substantial amount of migraine and probable migraine headache may be missed in everyday practice. We hope our findings will provide a basis for the development of diagnostic methods more closely suited to the needs of nonspecialists, and contribute to a better standard of care for headache patients seen in primary care practice. Finally, we are hopeful that other researchers will consider using our template and guideline procedures in their efforts to identify diagnostic patterns and study headache and other health problems.     

Center of excellence for headache care: group model at Kaiser Permanente

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a disease management model for primary headache by: (1) assessing improvement in patients' quality of life, (2) decreasing headache-related visits to primary care and emergency departments, and (3) maintaining high levels of patient and physician satisfaction. BACKGROUND: Patients with headache regularly seek health care but, in general, are dissatisfied with the care they receive. Patients with primary headaches utilize resources and cost health plans more than patients with other chronic diseases. Primary care visits are time restricted, prohibiting adequate headache evaluation and management. Practice guidelines are inconsistently followed, and access to headache specialists is limited. This headache management program implemented an alternative means of delivering care to manage large volumes of patients with headache. A multidisciplinary team approach coordinated by a neurologist, utilizing education and a nurse practitioner as the main provider of care, was the central process of the program. METHODS: This was a pilot study involving a prospective cohort with defined outcome measures. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with primary headaches. Patients initially attended an educational session instructed by a neurologist and a nurse practitioner. The patient was subsequently evaluated by the nurse practitioner who developed and coordinated a comprehensive individual treatment plan. The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Questionnaires were completed at baseline, at follow-up visits, and 6 months after completion of the program. Subjective patient assessment of improvement in their headaches, chart review for tabulation of headache-related visits, and primary care physician satisfaction surveys were measured. RESULTS: Both the Migraine-Specific questionnaire and the Short Form-36 measurements demonstrated a statistically significant improvement at 8 weeks, and this was maintained for 6 months after completing the program. At completion of the program, 92% of patients reported subjective improvement. Patient visits for headaches to primary care and emergency departments showed a significant decrease. High levels of satisfaction for primary care physicians were achieved. CONCLUSIONS: A disease management model using a multidisciplinary team improved individualized patient care. This model increased patient/provider rapport and communication through an educational class. It empowered the patient to take control of their health care by utilizing shared decision making. Patient satisfaction improved and overall health care utilization was reduced.     

Quality in the provision of headache care. 2: defining quality and its indicators

The objective of this study was to define "quality" of headache care, and develop indicators that are applicable in different settings and cultures and to all types of headache. No definition of quality of headache care has been formulated. Two sets of quality indicators, proposed in the US and UK, are limited to their localities and/or specific to migraine and their development received no input from people with headache. We first undertook a literature review. Then we conducted a series of focus-group consultations with key stakeholders (doctors, nurses and patients) in headache care. From the findings we proposed a large number of putative quality indicators, and refined these and reduced their number in consultations with larger international groups of stakeholder representatives. We formulated a definition of quality from the quality indicators. Five main themes were identified: (1) headache services; (2) health professionals; (3) patients; (4) financial resources; (5) political agenda and legislation. An initial list of 160 putative quality indicators in 14 domains was reduced to 30 indicators in 9 domains. These gave rise to the following multidimensional definition of quality of headache care: "Good-quality headache care achieves accurate diagnosis and individualized management, has appropriate referral pathways, educates patients about their headaches and their management, is convenient and comfortable, satisfies patients, is efficient and equitable, assesses outcomes and is safe." Quality in headache care is multidimensional and resides in nine essential domains that are of equal importance. The indicators are currently being tested for feasibility of use in clinical settings.     

Etiology and distribution of headaches in two Brazilian primary care units

OBJECTIVES: To determine (a) which patients seek primary care services with a complaint of headache, (b) the percentages of the various types of headache in this population, and (c) the impact of the care provided to these patients on the basic health care network. BACKGROUND: Headache is one of the most frequent symptoms reported in medical practice, resulting in significant medical services costs and loss of patient productivity, as well as reduced quality of life. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted in two towns (Ribeir?o Preto and S?o Carlos) in the State of S?o Paulo, Brazil. The participants in the study consisted of 6006 patients (52.4% women) with highly varied acute symptoms. The patients ranged in age from 14 to 98 years. RESULTS: Headache as the main complaint was reported by 561 (9.3%) of the patients considered, with 312 (55.6%) of those patients presenting with primary headache, 221 (39.4%) with headaches secondary to systemic disorders, and 28 (5.0%) with headaches secondary to neurological disorders. Migraine, the most prevalent primary headache, accounted for 45.1% of patients reporting headache as the single symptom. The most frequent etiologies of headaches secondary to systemic disorders were fever, acute hypertension, and sinusitis. The most frequent headaches secondary to neurological disorders were posttraumatic headaches, headaches secondary to cervical disease, and expansive intracranial processes. Of the 26 cases of drug abuse, 20 were secondary to alcohol (hangover). Headaches secondary to systemic disorders were more frequent in the extreme age ranges. CONCLUSIONS: Headache is a very frequent symptom among patients seen at primary health care units and should be considered a public health problem. The dissemination of the diagnostic criteria of the International Headache Society among primary health care physicians is urgently needed in order to avoid the repeated return of patients or their referral to more differentiated emergency units, which overburden an already insufficient health care network.     

Use of complementary and alternative medicine by patients with chronic tension-type headache: results of a headache clinic survey

OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to evaluate the rates, pattern, and presence of predictors of complementary and alternative medicine use in a clinical population of patients with chronic tension-type headache. BACKGROUND: The use of complementary and alternative medicine in the treatment of headaches is a growing phenomenon about which little is known. METHODS: A total of 110 chronic tension-type headache patients attending a headache clinic participated in a physician-administered structured interview designed to gather information on complementary and alternative medicine use. RESULTS: Past use of complementary and alternative therapies was reported by 40% of the patients surveyed (22.7% in the previous year). Chronic tension-type headache patients prefer complementary and alternative practitioner-administered physical treatments to self-treatments, the most frequently used being chiropractic (21.9%), acupuncture (17.8%), and massage (17.8%). Only 41.1% of the patients perceived complementary and alternative therapies to be beneficial. The most common source of recommendation of complementary and alternative medicine was a friend or relative (41.1%). Most of the chronic tension-type headache patients used complementary and alternative treatment as a specific intervention for their headache (77.3%). Almost 60% of complementary and alternative medicine users had not informed their medical doctors of their use of complementary and alternative medicine. The most common reasons given for choosing to use a complementary or alternative therapy was the "potential improvement of headache" it offered (45.4%). The patients who had used more complementary and alternative treatments were found to be those recording a higher lifetime number of visits to conventional medical doctors, those with a comorbid psychiatric disorder, those enjoying a higher (household) income, and those who had never tried a preventive pharmacological treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that headache-clinic chronic tension-type headache patients, in their need of and quest for care, seek and explore both conventional and complementary and alternative therapies, even if only 41.1% of them perceived complementary treatments as effective. Physicians should be made aware of this patient-driven change in the medical climate in order to prevent misuse of health care resources and to be better equipped to meet patients' care requirements.     

Headache patients in primary care and a tertiary care unit in Zürich, Switzerland

The Headache and Pain Clinic (HPC) is a unit of the Zürich Neurology Department, established in 1966. In the present study demographic features, clinical characteristics and medical management of primary and tertiary care patients were compared in two groups of 181 patients each, seen by general practitioners (GPs) or the HPC, respectively, for primary headaches in 1998. There was a preponderance of women and the socially underprivileged in both samples. Chronic headache was overrepresented in the HPC (44.7%). Loss of work for >2 months was found exclusively in the HPC (9.9%). Of the GP patients, 40% were using triptans and 26.5% in the HPC. One-third of both groups had had complementary and alternative medical treatment. Differences in management strategies reflected differences in headache severity and chronicity. Results indicated that remaining shortcomings of diagnosis and treatment of headache in primary care could be minimized by involving GPs in similar non-commercial studies.     

Headache service quality evaluation: implementation of quality indicators in primary care in Europe

BackgroundLifting The Burden (LTB) and European Headache Federation (EHF) have developed a set of headache service quality indicators, successfully tested in specialist headache centres. Their intended application includes all levels of care. Here we assess their implementation in primary care.MethodsWe included 28 primary-care clinics in Germany (4), Turkey (4), Latvia (5) and Portugal (15). To implement the indicators, we interviewed 111 doctors, 92 nurses and medical assistants, 70 secretaries, 27 service managers and 493 patients, using the questionnaires developed by LTB and EHF. In addition, we evaluated 675 patients’ records. Enquiries were in nine domains: diagnosis, individualized management, referral pathways, patient education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient satisfaction, equity and efficiency of headache care, outcome assessment and safety.ResultsThe principal finding was that Implementation proved feasible and practical in primary care. In the process, we identified significant quality deficits. Almost everywhere, histories of headache, especially temporal profiles, were captured and/or assessed inaccurately. A substantial proportion (20%) of patients received non-specific ICD codes such as R51 (“headache”) rather than specific headache diagnoses. Headache-related disability and quality of life were not part of routine clinical enquiry. Headache diaries and calendars were not in use. Waiting times were long (e.g., about 60 min in Germany). Nevertheless, most patients (> 85%) expressed satisfaction with their care. Almost all the participating clinics provided equitable and easy access to treatment, and follow-up for most headache patients, without unnecessary barriers.ConclusionsThe study demonstrated that headache service quality indicators can be used in primary care, proving both practical and fit for purpose. It also uncovered quality deficits leading to suboptimal treatment, often due to a lack of knowledge among the general practitioners. There were failures of process also. These findings signal the need for additional training in headache diagnosis and management in primary care, where most headache patients are necessarily treated. More generally, they underline the importance of headache service quality evaluation in primary care, not only to identify-quality failings but also to guide improvements.This study also demonstrated that patients’ satisfaction is not, on its own, a good indicator of service quality.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01236-4.