Headache Services Research Articles

World Federation of Neurology Needs Registry Survey 2021

The WFN Needs Registry survey was developed and conducted over two and a half years commencing in 2020 to investigate the accessibility and affordability of neurological services and therapeutics and the most urgent needs. Method: An experienced neurologist responded in each of 118 societies to an online electronic survey comprising 13 questions. General data sought comprised the respondent's training, place of practice, duration in practice, number of neurologists in the society, health care system and types of neurological practice available. Specific data collected comprised neurological facilities, specialist services available, resources, therapeutics accessibility, challenges and three most urgent needs. ResultsResponding neurologists spent a median of 26 years in practice and represented a median of 225 neurologists per society. Of 13 classes of neuromedicines deemed readily available to 70% of the population, 41 societies listed ≥1 and 14 societies ≥3 unavailable. The three most frequent unavailable neuromedicines were second level AEDs, Dopamine agonists and MS DMTs. Of 14 neurological services, 15 societies had all services accessible and affordable, 13 had none and 72 had ≥1 services either inaccessible or unaffordable. EEG, Epilepsy, Headache and EMG services were most available; Neurogenetics, Neuropsychology, Neurorehabilitation and Neurodevelopmental services were least available. Of 13 specified challenges, lack of subspecialists and specialty centers were both identified by 61% of societies followed by costs of neurological care, neuromedicines availability and stigma. Ten societies had no challenges. ConclusionA unique insight into the inequities of neurological care globally and a potential tool to assist their remedy.

Headache in the adult population of Cameroon: prevalence estimates and demographic associations from a cross-sectional nationwide population-based study

BackgroundKnowledge of headache prevalence, and the burdens attributable to headache disorders, remains incomplete in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): reliable studies have been conducted only in Zambia (southern SSA) and Ethiopia (eastern SSA). As part of the Global Campaign against Headache, we investigated the prevalence of headache in Cameroon, in Central SSA.MethodsWe used the same methodology as the studies in Zambia and Ethiopia, employing cluster-randomized sampling in four regions of Cameroon, selected to reflect the country’s geographic, ethnic and cultural diversities. We visited, unannounced, randomly selected households in each region, and randomly selected one adult member (aged 18–65 years) of each. Trained interviewers administered the Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) structured questionnaire, developed by an international expert consensus group and translated into Central African French. Demographic enquiry was followed by diagnostic questions based on ICHD-3 criteria.ResultsHeadache was a near-universal experience in Cameroon (lifetime prevalence: 94.8%). Observed 1-year prevalence of headache was 77.1%. Age- and gender-adjusted estimates were 76.4% (95% confidence interval: 74.9–77.9) for any headache, 17.9% (16.6–19.3) for migraine (definite + probable), 44.4% (42.6–46.2) for tension-type headache (TTH; also definite + probable), 6.5% (5.7–7.4) for probable medication-overuse headache (pMOH) and 6.6% (5.8–7.6) for other headache on ≥ 15 days/month (H15 +). One-day prevalence (“headache yesterday”) was 15.3%. Gender differentials were as expected (more migraine and pMOH among females, and rather more TTH among males). pMOH increased in prevalence until age 55 years, then declined somewhat. Migraine and TTH were both associated with urban dwelling, pMOH, in contrast, with rural dwelling.ConclusionsHeadache disorders are prevalent in Cameroon. As in Zambia and Ethiopia, estimates for both migraine and TTH exceed global mean estimates. Attributable burden is yet to be reported, but these findings must lead to further research, and measures to develop and implement headache services in Cameroon, with appropriate management and preventative strategies.

Characterizing healthcare utilization patterns in a Danish population with headache: results from the nationwide headache in Denmark (HINDER) panel

IntroductionWorldwide, far from all of those who would benefit make use of headache services, largely because of clinical, social, and political barriers to access. Identifying the factors contributing to low healthcare utilization can generate evidence to guide health policy. Our purpose here is better to characterize healthcare utilization patterns in Denmark.MethodsThe Headache in Denmark (HINDER) study is a nationwide cross-sectional survey of people with headache, conducted using SurveyXact (Rambøll Group A/S, Copenhagen). Healthcare utilization was assessed in a study sample generated by population screening and recruitment. Data collection occurred over two weeks, from September 23rd until October 4th, 2021. The questions enquired into disease characteristics, management, burden, medication intake and healthcare utilization.ResultsThe number of participants included in the HINDER panel was 4,431, with 2,990 (67.5%: 2,522 [84.3%] female, 468 [15.7%] male; mean age 40.9 ± 11.6 years) completing the survey. One quarter of participants (27.7%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that they were able to manage their headache attacks. Most participants (81.7%) agreed or strongly agreed that their headache was a burden in their everyday lives. The most reported acute medications, by 87.2% of participants, were simple analgesics; of note, 8.6% reported using opioids for their headache. One quarter of participants (24.4%) had never consulted a medical doctor for their headache; one in six (16.5%: more than two thirds of the 24.4%) had never done so despite agreeing or strongly agreeing that their headache was a burden in their everyday lives. Two thirds (65.3%) of participants overall, and almost three quarters (72.4%) of those with weekly headache, had tried one or more complementary or alternative therapies outside conventional medical care.ConclusionsOur findings are indicative of inadequate delivery of headache care in a country that provides free and universal coverage for all its residents. The implications are twofold. First, it is not sufficient merely to make services available: public education and increased awareness are necessary to encourage uptake by those who would benefit. Second, educational interventions in both pre- and postgraduate settings are necessary, but a prerequisite for these is a resetting of policy priorities, properly to reflect the very high population ill-health burden of headache.

Addressing inequities in headache care by embedding services in a community health center in Boston, MA.

There is a critical need to diagnose and treat headache disorders in primary care settings. This is especially true for those who face systemic barriers to healthcare access due to racism or poverty. In order to target those at higher risk of disability associated with neurologic disease in our healthcare system, we embedded a specialized headache and neurology clinic within the Brigham and Women's Hospital Southern Jamaica Plain Community Health Center in Boston, MA. The goal was to create a sustainable, integrated clinic consistent with the CHC's racial justice mission, with an emphasis on equitable care, awareness of structural barriers to care, improved communication with primary care and inclusion of trainees as important members of a healthcare team. In its' first year, the clinic had over 400 patient visits, with a near-perfect rate of completion of consults. In addition to improved access to tertiary care headache services, successes have included improving continuity of care, cultivating a model of shared care with primary care practitioners and stimulating interest in headache medicine among staff and trainees. Challenges have included the use of staff time to complete prior authorizations, and the need to find or develop Spanish-language and culturally appropriate patient educational resources. By providing care within the patient's medical home, the headache specialist gains a deeper appreciation of a patient's social determinants of health and can readily access resources to navigate barriers. The personal and professional fulfillment that headache specialists may experience while doing this important work could help protect against burnout. Sustainability depends on ensuring equitable provider reimbursement; departmental and institutional support is essential. We believe this clinic can serve as a model for specialists throughout the United States who wish to improve the delivery of care to patient populations who face access barriers.

Interest in and exposure to headache disorders among neurology residents in Denmark: A nationwide cross-sectional survey.

Headache disorders constitute a leading cause of disability worldwide, but there is a consistent absence of awareness and educational activities for healthcare providers across regions. Thus, we found it timely to identify potential structural challenges and factors that may affect acquisition of knowledge of headache disorders and their management during their 4-year residency. We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional survey of residents in neurology in Denmark including, but not limited to, questions on interest in neurological subspecialties and disorders, adequacy of training in headache disorders, exposure to headache disorders during training including time spent on headache disorders, exposure to specialist outpatient clinics, whether their hospital have a tertiary headache clinic, training in specific procedures (anesthetic blockade, e.g., greater occipital nerve blockade, and onabotulinumtoxinA for headache), and an estimate of proportion of cases with headache among patients managed in the last week. The survey was distributed to 127 residents in Denmark between March 2022 and April 2022. Of these, 59 (47%) completed all questions of the survey. Headache disorders were the fourth most popular subspecialties among respondents (n=15 [25%]) following movement disorders (n=27 [46%]), vascular neurology (n=26 [44%]), and neuromuscular disorders (n=25 [42%]). The mean number of hours spent in a course or a structured educational activity in headache disorders during residency was 12.1 h. Half of respondents (n=27 [46%]) reported that they perceived their training in headache disorders to be inadequate. Even in Denmark, a country with excellent headache services, half of residents in neurology report an inadequate training despite a higher-than-average number of hours of structured educational activities. These findings should incentivize stakeholders to make structural changes to improve education in headache disorders during the most fundamental years of training.

Headache service management: a new approach to providing more robust and equitable care across the UK

Headaches are common conditions, but can represent a significant burden to patients, healthcare services and the wider economy. Gordon et al outline how headache services could be made more effective and equally accessible in the UK.

One-quarter of individuals with weekly headache have never consulted a medical doctor: a Danish nationwide cross-sectional survey

IntroductionLarge numbers of people with headache who would benefit are not reached by headache services. Among the causes are poor or disorganized provision of headache services, but reluctance to seek healthcare has frequently been identified as a significant barrier. We conducted a national survey of people with headache to assess the extent of this problem in Denmark, a country with well organized, highly resourced, and readily accessible services.MethodsWe conducted a nationwide cross-sectional survey of adults ≥ 18 years old in Denmark reporting at least one headache day in the last year. We used social media (Facebook) to publicize and drive a recruitment campaign. The survey investigated five items: (1) disease burden, (2) social life, (3) presenteeism, (4) social support, and (5) healthcare utilization.ResultsWe included 6,567 respondents from May 2021 to June 2021; 70.2% were female, 39.8% male, and mean age was 43.2 ± 13.4 years. Of the respondents, 54.2% reported headache at least once a week, 33.4% reported headache a couple of times a month, and 12.4% reported headache a couple of times a year. Two-thirds of respondents (66.6%) reported that headache limited their social lives occasionally or frequently. Most respondents (86.8%) reported going to work or attending educational activities occasionally or more frequently even though they had headache. Half of the respondents (49.5%) experienced lack of understanding of their headaches from people occasionally or more frequently. Almost half of respondents (43.7%) had never consulted a medical doctor for their headache; even of those with weekly headache, more than a quarter (28.3%) had never done so in their lifetimes.ConclusionsHeadache disorders continue to be a problem, even in a high-income country with free and easily accessible headache services. Further studies are needed to investigate and clarify why even people with the highest burden are hesitant to seek and make use of widely available headache services.

Use of Non-pharmacological Therapies in Individuals With Migraine Eligible for Treatment With Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP)-Signaling: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Observational Study.

IntroductionAccessibility of treatment with monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) signaling pathway is impeded by regulatory restrictions. Affected individuals may seek out other services including non-pharmacological therapies. Thus, we found it timely to ascertain the use of non-pharmacological therapies in individuals with treatment-resistant migraine eligible for and naïve to treatment with CGRP-signaling targeting monoclonal antibodies.MethodsWe conducted a single-center cross-sectional observational study of patients eligible for and naïve to treatment with monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP or its receptor. We recorded demographical information (gender, age, educational level, employment status, and income), disease burden (frequency of headache days and migraine days), previous use of preventive pharmacological medications for migraine, and use of non-pharmacological therapies over the past 3 months including frequency of interventions, costs, and patient-reported assessment of efficacy on a 6-point scale (0: no efficacy, 5: best possible efficacy).ResultsWe included 122 patients between 17 June 2019 and 6 January 2020; 101 (83%) were women and the mean age was 45.2 ± 13.3 years. One-third (n = 41 [34%]) had used non-pharmacological therapy within the past 3 months. Among these participants, the median frequency of different interventions was 1 (IQR: 1–2), the median number of monthly visits was 2.3 (IQR: 1.3–4), mean and median monthly costs were 1,086 ± 1471, and 600 (IQR: 0–1200) DKK (1 EUR = ~7.5 DKK), respectively, and median patient-reported assessment of the efficacy of interventions was 2 (IQR: 0–3).ConclusionEven in a high-income country with freely accessible headache services and universal healthcare coverage, there was a non-negligible direct cost in parallel with low satisfaction for non-pharmacological therapies among patients at a tertiary headache center.

Embedding general neurology and tertiary care headache services in community health centers (CHCs) in Boston, MA: establishment and early experiences (S28.010)

Embedding general neurology and tertiary care headache services in community health centers (CHCs) in Boston, MA: establishment and early experiences (S28.010)

Telehealth perceptions and utilization for the delivery of headache care before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods study.

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the utilization of telehealth for headache services within the Veterans Health Administration’s facilities housing a Headache Centers of Excellence and multiple stakeholder’s perspectives to inform future telehealth delivery.BackgroundTelehealth delivery of headache treatment may enhance patient access to headache care, yet little is known about the utilization or patient and provider perceptions of telehealth for veterans with headache.MethodsThis mixed‐methods study analyzed multiple data sources: (1) administrative data, which included 58,798 patients with medically diagnosed headache disorders, documented in at least one outpatient visit, from August 2019 through September 2020 from the 12 Veterans Health Administration’s facilities with a Headache Center of Excellence and (2) qualitative semistructured interviews with 20 patients and 43 providers 6 months before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, and 10 patients and 20 providers 6 months during the beginning of the pandemic.ResultsDuring the pandemic, in‐person visits declined from 12,794 to 6099 (52.0%), whereas video (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 2.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.66, 2.52), and telephone visits (IRR = 15.2, 95% CI = 10.7, 21.6) significantly increased. Utilization differed based on patient age, race/ethnicity, and rurality. Patients and providers perceived value in using telehealth, yet had limited experience with this modality pre‐pandemic. Providers preferred in‐person appointments for initial encounters and telehealth for follow‐up visits. Providers and patients identified benefits and challenges of telehealth delivery, often relying on multiple delivery methods for telehealth to enhance patient engagement.ConclusionsThe uptake of telehealth delivery of headache‐related care rapidly expanded in response to the pandemic. Patients and providers were amenable to utilizing telehealth, yet also experienced technological barriers. To encourage equitable access to telehealth and direct resources to those in need, it is crucial to understand patient preferences regarding in‐person versus telehealth visits and identify patient groups who face barriers to access.

Bridging the gaps of headache care for underserved populations: Current status of the headache field in Latin America.

To evaluate the current status of specialized headache care and research in Latin America. Latin America corresponds to about 9% of the global population. There is considerably limited access to headache services, and very few resources are allocated to headache research in this region. The study consisted of two parts. First, in order to evaluate headache-related scientific output from Latin American countries we performed a 10-year bibliometric analysis and contrasted the results with a human developmental index-adjusted projection model. Secondly, we conducted a survey addressing different aspects of headache research, education, clinical practice, and awareness among members of the Latin American Headache Society. During the last 10 years 70% of Latin American countries published less than three articles regarding headache disorders. This contrasts with an average expected publication rate of 889 scientific papers. Indeed, none of the countries fulfilled their human developmental index - adjusted projected scientific output, with Brazil being the closest reaching 84.1% of what would be considered optimal according to the model. From the 86 headache-dedicated professionals that responded to the survey, most (64%) reported not having a headache specialization programme of any kind available in their countries. The biggest impediments towards conducting research observed by participants were the lack of time (39%), resources (22%), and training (21%). Latin American countries have a considerable gap in headache-related scientific production, and also in formal education, research, and implementation of multidisciplinary services. Access to specialized headache care is particularly limited for patients with lower economic income.

The relationship between headache-attributed disability and lost productivity: 2. Empirical evidence from population-based studies in nine disparate countries

BackgroundHeadache disorders are disabling, with major consequences for productivity, yet the literature is silent on the relationship between headache-attributed disability and lost productivity, often erroneously regarding the two as synonymous. We evaluated the relationship empirically, having earlier found that investment in structured headache services would be cost saving, not merely cost-effective, if reductions in headache-attributed disability led to > 20% pro rata recovery of lost productivity.MethodsWe used individual participant data from Global Campaign population-based studies conducted in China, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Russia, and from Eurolight in Lithuania, Luxembourg and Spain. We assessed relationships in migraine and probable medication-overuse headache (pMOH), the most disabling common headache disorders. Available symptom data included headache frequency, usual duration and usual intensity. We used frequency and duration to estimate proportion of time in ictal state (pTIS). Disability, in the sense used by the Global Burden of Disease study, was measured as the product of pTIS and disability weight for the ictal state. Impairment was measured as pTIS * intensity. Lost productivity was measured as lost days (absence or < 50% productivity) from paid work and corresponding losses from household work over the preceding 3 months. We used Spearman correlation and linear regression analyses.ResultsFor migraine, in a linear model, we found positive associations with lost paid worktime, significant (p < 0.05) in many countries and highly significant (p < 0.001) in some despite low values of R2 (0–0.16) due to high variance. With lost household worktime and total lost productivity (paid + household), associations were highly significant in almost all countries, although still with low R2 (0.04–0.22). Applying the regression equations for each country to the population mean migraine-attributed disability, we found pro rata recoveries of lost productivity in the range 16–56% (> 20% in all countries but Pakistan). Analysing impairment rather than disability increased variability. For pMOH, with smaller numbers, associations were generally weaker, occasionally negative and mostly not significant.ConclusionRelief of disability through effective treatment of migraine is expected, in most countries, to recover > 20% pro rata of lost productivity, above the threshold for investment in structured headache services to be cost saving.

Time to retire 'New daily persistent headache': Mode of onset of chronic migraine and tension-type headache.

New daily persistent headache is described as an enigmatic condition with daily headache from onset. It has posed challenges diagnostically and therapeutically.Methods: We conducted a study of patients referred to headache services based in Central and North-East London, United Kingdom, meeting the International Classificaiton of Headache Disorders - 3 criteria for New daily persistent headache. Information on demographics, phenotype and treatment responses were collected. The syndrome of the daily headache was also classified according any other ICHD-3-defined syndrome.Results: Of 162 patients, females comprised 68.5% with median age of onset 35 years. The daily headache experienced was chronic migraine in 89.7% and tension-type headache in 8.8%. Thunderclap-onset New daily persistent headache occurred in 14.8%. More than one headache syndrome was experienced in 15.4%, including cough, hypnic, sexual and stabbing headache. All aura types were experienced, most commonly brainstem aura in 39%. Prior headache was reported 53.7%. A persisting sub-form was present in 51.2%, relapsing remitting in 12.3% and 14.0% reported improvement; 19.8% were lost to follow-up. Only 11.1% reported an antecedent trigger. The most common premorbid disorders were psychiatric in 35.7%. A fifth improved on preventative medication, most commonly amitriptyline, propranolol and topiramate.Conclusion: Our cohort of New daily persistent headache is consistent with a mode of onset of migraine and tension-type headache which occurs in predisposed individuals.

Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache. 2. Modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementation in Europe: methodology

BackgroundHealth economic evaluations support health-care decision-making by providing information on the costs and consequences of health interventions. No universally accepted methodology exists for modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to close treatment gaps for headache disorders in countries of Europe (or elsewhere). Our aim here, within the European Brain Council’s Value-of-Treatment project, was to develop headache-type-specific analytical models to be applied to implementation of structured headache services in Europe as the health-care solution to headache.MethodsWe developed three headache-type-specific decision-analytical models using the WHO-CHOICE framework and adapted these for three European Region country settings (Luxembourg, Russia and Spain), diverse in geographical location, population size, income level and health-care systems and for which we had population-based data. Each model compared current (suboptimal) care vs target care (delivered in accordance with the structured headache services model). Epidemiological and economic data were drawn from studies conducted by the Global Campaign against Headache; data on efficacy of treatments were taken from published randomized controlled trials; assumptions on uptake of treatments, and those made for Healthy Life Year (HLY) calculations and target-care benefits, were agreed with experts. We made annual and 5-year cost estimates from health-care provider (main analyses) and societal (secondary analyses) perspectives (2020 figures, euros).ResultsThe analytical models were successfully developed and applied to each country setting. Headache-related costs (including use of health-care resources and lost productivity) and health outcomes (HLYs) were mapped across populations. The same calculations were repeated for each alternative (current vs target care). Analyses of the differences in costs and health outcomes between alternatives and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are presented elsewhere.ConclusionsThis study presents the first headache-type-specific analytical models to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing structured headache services in countries in the European Region. The models are robust, and can assist policy makers in allocating health budgets between interventions to maximize the health of populations.

Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache. 3. Modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementation in Europe: findings and conclusions

BackgroundThere have been several calls for estimations of costs and consequences of headache interventions to inform European public-health policies. In a previous paper, in the absence of universally accepted methodology, we developed headache-type-specific analytical models to be applied to implementation of structured headache services in Europe as the health-care solution to headache. Here we apply this methodology and present the findings.MethodsData sources were published evidence and expert opinions, including those from an earlier economic evaluation framework using the WHO-CHOICE model. We used three headache-type-specific analytical models, for migraine, tension-type-headache (TTH) and medication-overuse-headache (MOH). We considered three European Region case studies, from Luxembourg, Russia and Spain to include a range of health-care systems, comparing current (suboptimal) care versus target care (structured services implemented, with provider-training and consumer-education). We made annual and 5-year cost estimates from health-care provider and societal perspectives (2020 figures, euros). We expressed effectiveness as healthy life years (HLYs) gained, and cost-effectiveness as incremental cost-effectiveness-ratios (ICERs; cost to be invested/HLY gained). We applied WHO thresholds for cost-effectiveness.ResultsThe models demonstrated increased effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness (migraine) or cost saving (TTH, MOH) from the provider perspective over one and 5 years and consistently across the health-care systems and settings. From the societal perspective, we found structured headache services would be economically successful, not only delivering increased effectiveness but also cost saving across headache types and over time. The predicted magnitude of cost saving correlated positively with country wage levels. Lost productivity had a major impact on these estimates, but sensitivity analyses showed the intervention remained cost-effective across all models when we assumed that remedying disability would recover only 20% of lost productivity.ConclusionsThis is the first study to propose a health-care solution for headache, in the form of structured headache services, and evaluate it economically in multiple settings. Despite numerous challenges, we demonstrated that economic evaluation of headache services, in terms of outcomes and costs, is feasible as well as necessary. Furthermore, it is strongly supportive of the proposed intervention, while its framework is general enough to be easily adapted and implemented across Europe.

The New National Headache Management System is an easy solution to provide more efficient and evidence-based headache services

Headaches make up 30% of all Neurology outpatient consultations.1 There is distinct variability in the management of headaches by Neurologists, leading to unnecessary disparities in the standard of care and likelihood of response between patients. A significant proportion of patients with headache diagnoses do not receive the evidence-based treatments recommended in national or international guidelines,2 and substantial numbers of patients are not receiving preventive therapies.3 Ziegeler et al. found that a third of patients reporting to a tertiary headache centre had not received preventive therapy in line with guidelines, and half had never been prescribed a preventive treatment.2 Considering that 46% of the global adult population are estimated to have a headache disorder,4 this lack of a consistent, evidence-based approach is somewhat incongruent with the patient socio-economic impact. It is probable that lack of adherence to current headache guidelines is a multi-faceted issue. This variation in treatment (and therefore patient outcome), although unexplored,2 is not likely to be a simple educational issue. To add to this, an educational approach, in the form of seminars and workshops, does not have entirely positive evidence to support its use in implementing changes to patient care.5 It seems more probable that there are also structural issues within the health service that in some way preclude patients with headache disorders from gaining appropriate care. For example, using only doctors to care for patients with such a common condition may cause bottle-necking in access, and may not be an appropriate use of clinical resource. The current context of a global pandemic has shown us the importance of using the skillsets of all NHS staff working together for patient care. For headache care this could involve greater use of nursing colleagues or allied health professionals such as Pharmacists. To facilitate such an aim, an easily used and standardised approach is essential. We believe that the guidelines from the British Association for the Study of Headache (BASH),6 could facilitate such an approach.

Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache: 1. Rationale and description

In countries where headache services exist at all, their focus is usually on specialist (tertiary) care. This is clinically and economically inappropriate: most headache disorders can effectively and more efficiently (and at lower cost) be treated in educationally supported primary care. At the same time, compartmentalizing divisions between primary, secondary and tertiary care in many health-care systems create multiple inefficiencies, confronting patients attempting to navigate these levels (the “patient journey”) with perplexing obstacles.High demand for headache care, estimated here in a needs-assessment exercise, is the biggest of the challenges to reform. It is also the principal reason why reform is necessary.The structured headache services model presented here by experts from all world regions on behalf of the Global Campaign against Headache is the suggested health-care solution to headache. It develops and refines previous proposals, responding to the challenge of high demand by basing headache services in primary care, with two supporting arguments. First, only primary care can deliver headache services equitably to the large numbers of people needing it. Second, with educational supports, they can do so effectively to most of these people. The model calls for vertical integration between care levels (primary, secondary and tertiary), and protection of the more advanced levels for the minority of patients who need them. At the same time, it is amenable to horizontal integration with other care services. It is adaptable according to the broader national or regional health services in which headache services should be embedded.It is, according to evidence and argument presented, an efficient and cost-effective model, but these are claims to be tested in formal economic analyses.

A universal outcome measure for headache treatments, care-delivery systems and economic analysis

BackgroundThe first manuscript in this series delineated a model of structured headache services, potentially cost-effective but requiring formal cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). We envisaged a need for a new outcome measure for this purpose, applicable to all forms of treatment, care and care-delivery systems as opposed to comparisons of single-modality treatments.Conception and delineationA literature review confirmed the lack of any suitable established measure. We prioritised construct validity, simplicity, comprehensiveness and expression in intuitive units. We noted that pain was the key burdensome symptom of migraine and episodic tension-type headache (TTH), that pain above a certain level was disabling, that it was difficult to put economic value to pain but relatively easy to do this for time, a casualty of headache leading to lost productivity. Alleviation of pain to a non-disabling level would be expected to bring restoration of function. We therefore based the measure on time spent in the ictal state (TIS) of migraine or TTH, either as total TIS or proportion of all time. We expressed impact on health, in units of time, as TIS*DW, where DW was the disability weight for the ictal state supplied by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) studies. If the time unit was hours, TIS*DW yielded hours lived with (or lost to) disability (HLDs), in analogy with GBD’s years lived with disability (YLDs).Utility assessmentAcute treatments would reduce TIS by shortening attack duration, preventative treatments by reducing attack frequency; health-care systems such as structured headache services would have these effects by delivering these treatments. These benefits were all measurable as HLDs-averted. Population-level estimates would be derived by factoring in prevalence, but also taking treatment coverage and adherence into account. For health-care systems, additional gains from provider-training (promoting adherence to guidelines and, therefore, enhancing coverage) and consumer-education (improving adherence to care plans), increasing numbers within populations gaining the benefits of treatments, would be measurable by the same metric.ConclusionsThe new outcome measure expressed in intuitive units of time is applicable to treatments of all modalities and to system-level interventions for multiple headache types, with utility for CEA and for informing health policy.

Real need for headache services and their resource consumption: a retrospective observational study on a cohort in Cantabria

Headache services arise out of a need to improve care for patients with different types of headache; however, some important aspects of clinical management that demonstrate their efficiency remain unknown. To estimate the need for headache services in our area. We conducted a retrospective study in two phases: identification of the first visits due to headache during three consecutive months and collection of care data during one year. The care criteria in headache services considered were: chronic migraine, rare headaches, need for special techniques and headaches with poor therapeutic response. Of the 1,418 first visits, in 298 cases (20.38%) the reason for seeking medical attention was headache. Of these, 82.9% were from primary care. The distribution of the diagnoses was: 54%, migraine; 11%, tension-type headache; and 35%, other headaches. Altogether 108 patients met the criteria for referral to headache services: 63 for chronic migraine; 13 for nerve blocks; 9 for frequent migraine; 8 for trigeminal-autonomic cephalgias; 5 due to a need for botulinum toxin; and 10 for other reasons. The patients attended by headache services went to the emergency department less often than those who visited the general outpatient department, had fewer brain scans and more botulinum toxin was indicated. Headache services are justified because they offer better management of patients with the most severe variants of headache. In our country, at least two visits a week are needed to cover an area of 350,000 users of the Spanish National Health System.

Health-care utilization for headache disorders in Nepal: a population-based door-to-door survey

BackgroundHeadache disorders are an important global public-health problem, but under-diagnosed, undertreated and under-prioritized. Deficiencies in health care for headache, present everywhere, are likely to be greater in poorly-resourced countries. This study reports on health-care utilization for headache in Nepal, a low-income country with high headache burden.MethodsWe took data from a cross-sectional, nationwide population-based door-to-door survey, with multistage cluster random sampling. Face-to-face structured interviews included enquiry into consultations with professional health-care providers (HCPs), and investigations and treatments for headache. Analysis included associations with sociodemographic variables and indices of symptom severity.ResultsOf 2100 participants, 1794 reported headache during the preceding year (mean age 36.1 ± 12.6 years; male/female ratio 1:1.6). Of these, 58.4% (95% CI: 56.1–60.7%) had consulted at least once in the year with HCPs at any level, most commonly (25.0%) paramedical; 15.0% had consulted pharmacists, 10.8% general physicians and 7.6% specialists (of any type). Participants with probable medication-overuse headache consulted most (87.0%), followed by those with migraine (67.2%) and those with tension-type headache (48.6%; p < 0.001). A minority (11.9%) were investigated, mostly (8.9%) by eye tests. Half (50.8%) had used conventional medications for headache in the preceding month, paracetamol being by far the most common (38.0%), and 10.3% had used herbal therapies.Consultation was positively associated with rural habitation (AOR = 1.5; p < 0.001). Proportions consulting increased in line with all indices of symptom severity.ConclusionsAlthough over half of participants with headache had consulted professional HCPs, this reflects demand, not quality of care. Although 7.6% had seen specialists, very few would have been headache specialists in any sense of this term. High persistent burden, with only half of participants with headache using conventional medications, and these not best chosen, suggests these consultations fell far short of meeting need. Health policy in Nepal should recognise this, since the consequences otherwise are costly: lost health, diminished productivity and damaged national economy. On a positive note, the proportions consulting suggest that capacity exists at multiple levels within the Nepalese health system. With this to build upon, structured headache services in line with international recommendations appear achievable in Nepal. Educational programmes are the essential requirement.