Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Early exposure to neuroscience is imperative to strengthening the neuroscience and neurology pipeline and may present an avenue for increasing the number of practicing neurologists and diversifying the neuroscience workforce. Our objective was to systematically review existing K-12 neuroscience education and outreach programs to understand what educational programs have been developed and implemented. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted an electronic database search of PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Education Source, and ERIC. All eligible articles were systematically reviewed to examine the type of program developed, target age group, implementation, and efficacy. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Our search produced 2,574 results, from which 23 articles were deemed eligible. The breakdown by age group was as follows: 5 elementary school, 8 middle school, 8 high school, and 2 general K-12 range of students. Six articles described programs intended for URM students. All programs were found to be successful in exposing students to neuroscience and inspiring interest in pursuing a career in the field of neurology. DISCUSSION/UNASSIGNED:Further efforts are necessary to analyze the long-term effectiveness of K-12 neuroscience education and outreach programs in overcoming the shortage of neurologists and explore the impact of mentorship for various age groups among K-12.Systematic review registrationhttps://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2G8CN.

BACKGROUND:Headache disorders are among the most common and disabling medical conditions worldwide, have a great societal impact and are a common reason to seek medical care. Headache disorders are often misdiagnosed and undertreated, and the number of headache fellowship-trained physicians cannot meet patient demand. Educational initiatives for non-headache-specialist clinicians may be an avenue to increase clinician competency and patient access to appropriate management. OBJECTIVE:To undertake a scoping review of the educational initiatives in headache medicine for medical students, trainees, general practitioners/primary care physicians, and neurologists. METHODS:Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for scoping reviews, an author (M.D.), with the help of a medical librarian, conducted a search of the Embase, Ovid Medline, and PsychInfo databases for articles related to medical educational initiatives on headache medicine in medical students, residents, and physicians over the last 20 years. RESULTS:A total of 17 articles met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. Six articles were identified for medical students, seven for general practitioners/primary care physicians, one for emergency medicine residents, two for neurology residents, and one for neurologists. Certain educational initiatives were headache-focused while others had headaches as one of the educational topics. Educational content was delivered and assessed via diverse and innovative means, such as flipped classroom, simulation, theatrical performance, repeated quizzing and study, and a formalized headache elective. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Education initiatives in headache medicine are important to improve competency and patient access to appropriate management of various headache disorders. Future research should focus on using innovative and evidence-based methods of content delivery, knowledge, and procedural assessment, and evaluating changes in practice behaviors.

OBJECTIVE:We assessed headache clinicians' viewpoints on potential remote access to patients' digital headache diary data and the practicalities of data utilization. BACKGROUND:With the ubiquitous nature of electronic medical records and the existence of remote monitoring (RM) for many medical conditions, there is now the potential for remote symptom monitoring for patients with headache disorders. While patients are asked to utilize headache diaries, clinicians may or may not have access to the data before patient visits, and their perspectives regarding this emerging technology are currently unknown. METHODS:After recruiting participants from the National Institutes of Health Pain Consortium Network, the American Headache Society Special Interest Section listservs, and Twitter and Facebook social media platforms, we conducted 20 semi-structured qualitative interviews of headache providers across the United States from various types of institutions and asked them their perspectives on remote access to patient headache diary data. We transcribed the interviews, which were then coded by two independent coders. Themes and sub-themes were developed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS:All clinicians felt the RM data needed to be integrated into the electronic medical record. Six themes emerged from the interviews: (i) Clinician perspectives on how RM could be beneficial but at other times could create obstacles/challenges, (ii) operationally, data integration could benefit headache care, (iii) there should be initial logistical considerations for bringing RM into clinical care, (iv) education may need to be provided to both patients and clinicians, (v) there are likely research benefits associated with RM, and (vi) additional suggestions for considering potential integration of RM into practice. CONCLUSIONS:While headache clinicians had mixed opinions on the benefits/challenges that RM presents to patient care, patient satisfaction, and visit time, new ideas emerged that may help advance the field.

BACKGROUND:There are thousands of apps for individuals struggling with headache, insomnia, and pain, but it is difficult to establish which of these apps are best suited for patients' specific needs. If clinicians were to have access to a platform that would allow them to make an informed decision on the efficacy and feasibility of smartphone apps for patient care, they would feel confident in prescribing specific apps. OBJECTIVE:We sought to evaluate the quality of apps for some of the top common, disabling neurologic conditions (headache, insomnia, and pain) based on principles derived from the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) app evaluation model. METHODS:We used the Mobile Health Index and Navigation database and expanded upon the database's current supported conditions by adding 177 new app entries. Each app was rated for consistency with the APA's app evaluation model, which includes 105 objective questions based on the following 5 major classes of consideration: (1) accessibility, (2) privacy and security, (3) clinical foundation, (4) engagement style, and (5) interoperability. These characteristics were evaluated to gain a broader understanding of the significant features of each app category in comparison against a control group. RESULTS:Approximately 90% (187/201) of all apps evaluated were free to download, but only 50% (63/201) of headache- and pain-related apps were truly free. Most (87/106, 81%) sleep apps were not truly free to use. The apps had similar limitations with limited privacy, accessibility, and crisis management resources. For example, only 17% (35/201) of the apps were available in Spanish. The apps offered mostly self-help tools with little tailoring; symptom tracking was the most common feature in headache- (32/48, 67%) and pain-related apps (21/47, 45%), whereas mindfulness was the most common feature in sleep-related apps (73/106, 69%). CONCLUSIONS:Although there are many apps for headache, pain, and insomnia, all 3 types of apps have room for improvement around accessibility and privacy. Pain and headache apps share many common features, whereas insomnia apps offer mostly mindfulness-based resources. Given the many available apps to pick from, clinicians and patients should seek apps that offer the highest-quality features, such as complete privacy, remedial features, and the ability to download the app at no cost. These results suggest that there are many opportunities for the improvement of apps centered on headache, insomnia, and pain.

Despite increased neuroscience interest at the undergraduate level, a significant shortage of neurologists in the United States (US) exists. To better understand how to generate more interest in neurology specifically at the undergraduate level, we conducted an anonymous cross-sectional online survey of 1085 undergraduates either in neuroscience courses or majoring/minoring in neuroscience from across the US to better understand their clinical neurology experiences and perspectives. The survey quantitatively and qualitatively assessed students' clinical neurology exposure inside and outside of the classroom, research experiences and career goals. Students were from a broad spectrum of undergraduate institutions (public research university (40.8%), liberal arts College (29.7%) and private research university (29.0%). Most students (89.9%) were looking to pursue graduate studies; 56.9% reported wanting to be a physician and 17.8% expressed interest in obtaining an MD/PhD. Importantly, students reported first exposure to neuroscience at age 16 but felt that they could be exposed to neuroscience as early as 13. Half (50.5%) decided to major in neuroscience before college and a quarter (25.6%) decided to major in their first year of college. Despite high interest in clinical neurology exposure, less than one-third of students had spoken with or shadowed a neurologist, and only 13.6% had interacted with clinical neurology populations. Only 20.8% of students felt volunteer and internship opportunities were sufficiently available. Qualitative results include student perspectives from those who did and did not work with a neurologist, describing how they were or were not able to obtain such opportunities. We discuss translating the survey findings into actionable results with opportunities to target the undergraduate neuroscience interest to improve the neurology pipeline. We describe existing programs that could be integrated into everyday neurology practices and new approaches to learning and training to help leverage the significant undergraduate neuroscience interest. We also raise questions for further research, including exploring (1) how students learn of neurologic conditions/expand their knowledge about additional neurologic conditions, (2) whether qualitative investigation of the experiences of neuroscience undergraduates at specific institutions might provide additional insight, and (3) systems to maintain interest in neuroscience/neurology as students enter medical school.

BACKGROUND:Patients with headache often seek urgent medical care to treat pain and associated symptoms that do not respond to therapeutic options at home. Urgent Cares (UCs) may be suitable for the evaluation and treatment of such patients but there is little data on how headache is evaluated in UC settings and what types of treatments are available. We conducted a study to evaluate the types of care available for patients with headache presenting to UCs. DESIGN/METHODS:Cross-Sectional. METHODS:Headache specialists across the United States contacted UCs to collect data on a questionnaire. Questions asked about UC staffing (e.g. number and backgrounds of staff, hours of operation), average length of UC visits for headache, treatments and tests available for patients presenting with headache, and disposition including to the ED. RESULTS:Data from 10 UC programs comprised of 61 individual UC sites revealed: The vast majority (8/10; 80%) had diagnostic testing onsite for headache evaluation. A small majority (6/10; 60%) had the American Headache Society recommended intravenous medications for acute migraine available. Half (5/10) had a headache protocol in place. The majority (6/10; 60%) had no follow up policy after UC discharge. CONCLUSIONS:UCs have the potential to provide expedited care for patients presenting for evaluation and treatment of headache. However, considerable variability exists amongst UCs in their abilities to manage headaches. This study reveals many opportunities for future research including the development of protocols and professional partnerships to help guide the evaluation, triage, and treatment of patients with headache in UC settings.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, about half of patients from populations that sought care in neurology tried complementary and integrative therapies (CITs). With the increased utilization of telehealth services, we sought to determine whether patients also increased their use of virtual CITs. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We examined datasets from two separate cross-sectional surveys that included cohorts of patients with neurological disorders. One was a dataset from a study that examined patient and provider experiences with teleneurology visits; the other was a study that assessed patients with a history of COVID-19 infection who presented for neurologic evaluation. We assessed and reported the use of virtual (and non-virtual) CITs using descriptive statistics, and determined whether there were clinical characteristics that predicted the use of CITs using logistic regression analyses. Findings/UNASSIGNED:Patients who postponed medical treatment for non-COVID-19-related problems during the pandemic were more likely to seek CITs. Virtual exercise, virtual psychotherapy, and relaxation/meditation smartphone applications were the most frequent types of virtual CITs chosen by patients. In both studies, age was a key demographic factor associated with mobile/virtual CIT usage. Interpretations/UNASSIGNED:Our investigation demonstrates that virtual CIT-related technologies were utilized in the treatment of neurologic conditions during the pandemic, particularly by those patients who deferred non-COVID-related care.

One sentence summary: The purpose of this investigation was to expand the evidence base on CITs delivered by telehealth by evaluating CIT use in patients who presented to a large urban tertiary care neurology practice and to examine predictors of CIT use during the pandemic.
Background(s): Patients with neurological disorders may seek treatment options in addition to those recommended by their providers. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, about half of patients from populations that sought care in neurology tried complementary and integrative therapies (CITs). Given the reductions in in-person visits and the increases in teleneurology visits, we sought to determine whether patients increased their use of virtual complementary and integrative therapies.
Method(s): By examining two separate datasets that included cohorts of patients with neurological disorders, we assessed patients' use of virtual (and non-virtual) CITs and determined whether there were clinical characteristics that predicted their use. The two studies that comprised this report included one that examined patient and provider experiences with teleneurology visits, and another that assessed patients with a history of COVID-19 infection who presented for neurologic evaluation.
Result(s): Patients who postponed medical treatment for non-COVID- 19- related problems during the pandemic were more likely to seek CITs. Virtual exercise, virtual psychotherapy and relaxation/meditation smartphone applications were the most frequent types of virtual CITs chosen by patients. In both studies, age was a key demographic factor associated with mobile/ virtual CIT usage.
Conclusion(s): Data from our investigations demonstrated that, in addition to its other roles in teleneurology, CIT-related technologies might be utilized in the treatment of neurologic conditions

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Little is known about psychiatric symptoms among patients with migraine and newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. The investigators compared symptoms of depression, anxiety, and suicidality among people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy with migraine versus without migraine. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:The Human Epilepsy Project is a prospective multicenter study of patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Depression (measured with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale), anxiety (measured with the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale), and suicidality scores (measured with the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale [C-SSRS]) were compared between participants with versus without migraine. Data analysis was performed with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality assessment, the Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and linear regression. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Of 349 patients with new-onset focal epilepsy, 74 (21.2%) had migraine. There were no differences between the patients without migraine versus those with migraine in terms of age, race, and level of education. There were more women in the group with migraine than in the group without migraine (75.7% vs. 55.6%, p=0.0018). The patients with epilepsy and comorbid migraine had more depressive symptoms than the patients with epilepsy without migraine (35.2% vs. 22.7%, p=0.031). Patients with epilepsy with comorbid migraine had more anxiety symptoms than patients with epilepsy without migraine, but this relation was mediated by age in logistic regression, with younger age being associated with anxiety. Comorbid migraine was not associated with C-SSRS ideation or behavior. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Among a sample of patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy, 21.2% had migraine. Migraine comorbidity was associated with higher incidence of depressive symptoms. Future studies should be performed to better assess these relationships and possible treatment implications.

OBJECTIVE:Pain specialists treat patients with headache and interface with those who use opioids more so than neurologists and headache specialists. We assessed headache medicine knowledge and needs of pain specialists. DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Cross-sectional online survey. SUBJECTS/METHODS:Members of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. METHODS:Survey was based on a prior survey on primary care providers' knowledge and needs and was iteratively updated by four headache specialists, two with pain medicine affiliations. RESULTS:Of the 105 respondents, 71.4% were physicians, 34.3% were women, and they averaged 20.0 ± 13.6 years in practice. The most common specialty was anesthesia (36.1%, n = 35/97) followed by neurology (14.4%, n = 14/97). About half of providers (55.7%, n = 34/61 and 53.3%, n = 32/60) were familiar with the American Academy of Neurology Guidelines for pharmacological migraine prevention and the Choosing Wisely Campaign recommendations for limiting neuroimaging and opioids. Less than half of all providers (39.7%, n = 23/58) were familiar with the American Headache Society guidelines for emergency management of migraine. Providers were aware of Level A evidence-based nonpharmacological therapies, with over three-fourths recognizing cognitive behavioral therapy (80.7%, n = 50/62) and biofeedback (75.8%, n = 47/62) as evidence-based interventions. About 80% of providers (n = 50/64) estimate making migraine diagnoses in ≤ 50% of their patients with headache. Providers consider starting preventive headache therapy at 7.1 ± 3.9 days/month and report referring 34.3%±34.2% of patients to behavioral interventions. CONCLUSIONS:Dissemination and implementation of headache guidelines is needed for pain medicine specialists. Providers may need help diagnosing migraine based on currently accepted guidelines and referring for evidence-based behavioral therapies.