Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:There are more than 325,000 health-related smartphone applications (apps) on the market. To better understand the apps currently on the market for the five most disabling neuropsychiatric conditions, the authors conducted a study investigating their intended uses (target population and intervention), the data collected, and any privacy policies. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This was a cross-sectional study of apps for the five most disabling neuropsychiatric conditions per the World Health Organization: stroke, migraine, depression, Alzheimer's disease and dementia, and anxiety. Up to 15 apps in the U.S. Google Play and Apple app stores were selected based on the following prespecified inclusion criteria: the app appeared in the top 50 search results, offered intervention or tracking capabilities, and listed the condition in the app title or description. Exclusion criteria were <$5.00 to purchase, solely motor versus cognitive-based intervention, or designed for use by caregivers or health care providers. Data abstracted included function, behavior change rewards, and information about intervention, privacy policy, and payment. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Eighty-three apps were reviewed (stroke, N=8; migraine, N=25; Alzheimer's disease and dementia, N=8; depression, N=7; anxiety, N=14; apps targeting depression and anxiety, N=21). Sixty-nine percent of apps had an intervention component, 18% were deemed evidence based, 77% had a privacy policy, 70% required payment for access to all features, and 19% rewarded user behavior changes. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Most apps on the market targeted migraine, depression, and anxiety and contained interventions, although most of the interventions did not appear to be evidence based. Additionally, although most apps had privacy policies, lay people may have difficulty understanding these policies due to their complexities.

BACKGROUND:Headache mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) have gained popularity in use but there is little research into what people with migraine find important to track. This information is important for helping with adherence and determining meaningful data to patients. We conducted several clinical trials using a headache research app (RELAXaHEAD). The app contains a "notes" feature (a free-text input section) where patients could record notes related to their headache. OBJECTIVE:To identify what patients view as important when tracking migraine/headaches within a headache tracking mHealth app. METHODS:This was a retrospective study where smartphone diary notes inputted by people with migraine were qualitatively analyzed; notes were extracted, a preliminary codebook was developed and used to code each note. Using grounded theory, themes and subthemes emerged. RESULTS:About 288 subjects in the trials used the notes function. There were 5364 total notes with an average of 18.6 ± 39.2 notes/user. The qualitative analysis yielded 759 unique codes and the emergence of 4 major themes. The first theme was "Utility in free-text tracking of headache characteristics, medications, and sleep" which emerged as a space for users to elaborate on data that could have been inputted into other sections of the app. The second theme was "Monitoring coexisting conditions both related to and distinct from headache." The third theme was "Personal records of behavioral therapy adherence," which included a range of concepts from behavioral therapy session frequency/adherence to subjects' thoughts or emotions regarding the behavioral therapy. The fourth theme was "Migraine trigger, prevention, and relief patterns deciphered through consistent data tracking." CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We found that the majority of patients choose to expand on information beyond what can be inputted into specific icons in a headache app. Moreover, they want to be able to monitor not only headache-related symptoms but symptoms they experience from other conditions. In addition to tracking their pharmacologic treatment, they may choose to track their nonpharmacologic, that is, behavioral therapy use, and they also use a smartphone diary app to assess what triggers versus relieves a migraine. While the RELAXaHEAD app was designed with features to extract data that would be useful to physicians and patients in treating migraine, our study results indicated that users also prefer a range of tracking capabilities that may or may not be useful to physicians but may be important for headache smartphone user engagement.

BACKGROUND:Many headache smartphone applications (apps) are commercially available. A Modified Delphi Study aimed to determine specialists' expectations of what a headache app should entail but consumer expectations of headache apps have not been evaluated extensively. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate publicly available reviews of headache apps to understand app features that motivate the consumers to use apps. METHODS:The Google Play and Apple App Stores were systematically searched for headache/migraine diary apps with 10+ consumer reviews. A maximum of 300 "Most Helpful" reviews for each app were extracted. Four coders coded reviews and resolved discrepancies. Themes and subthemes were created based on codes used 5+ times. RESULTS:About 15 apps met the study criteria (9 Android, 6 IOS). 945 reviews were coded. Four themes emerged: (1) App allows users to track headache characteristics, potential triggers, and treatments; (2) App usability; (3) Personalization and features to assess trends in data are key motivators for app use; (4) Ease with exportation and viewing data is critical. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:A user-centered design with the ability to (1) customize key features including headache characteristics, potential triggers, and treatments, (2) assess trends in data, and (3) view and export data would best optimize headache smartphone applications based on consumer preference.

Background: Headache diaries are a mainstay of headache treatment. Various headache smartphone applications (apps) are commercially available. While a Modified Delphi Study aimed to determine specialists' expectations of what a headache app should entail, consumer expectations of these apps have not been evaluated extensively. The aim of this study was to evaluate publicly available reviews of headache apps in the Google Play Store and Apple store to understand app features that motivate consumers to use apps.
Method(s): Using pre-specified criteria, the Google and Apple Play Stores were systematically searched for headache/migraine diary apps with at least 10 consumer reviews. A maximum of 300 'Most Helpful' reviews for each app were extracted into Google Sheets. Four coders qualitatively reviewed and coded reviews until discrepancies were resolved. Codes were counted, and 4 themes with sub-themes were created based on codes used 5+ times.
Result(s): 15 apps met study criteria (9 Android, 6 IOS). The four main themes with sub-themes were: (1) Apps allows user to track headache characteristics, potential triggers, and treatments: track triggers; track treatments; track headache information; users suggest features to log relevant information. (2) App usability: apps allow viewing/editing of existing records; design features for migraine patients are appreciated; technical difficulties limit app usage; developer services satisfy customers. (3) Personalization and features to assess trends in data are key motivators for app use: apps point out trends in data; customization by collection of user's personal information; app provides relief. (4) Ease with exportation and viewing data is critical: app generates data reports; app assists doctors in better treating user's headaches.
Conclusion(s): A user-centered design with the ability to customize key features including headache characteristics, potential triggers and treatments, assess trends in data and view and export the data would best optimize headache smartphone applications based on consumer preference

BACKGROUND:There are safe and well-tolerated level A evidence-based behavioral therapies for the prevention of migraine. They are biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy, and relaxation. However, the behavioral therapies for the prevention of migraine are underutilized. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We sought to examine whether people with migraine with 4 or more headache days a month had preferences regarding the type of delivery of the behavioral therapy (in-person, smartphone based, telephone) and whether they would be willing to pay for in-person behavioral therapy. We also sought to determine the predictors of likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy. METHODS:Using a cross-sectional study design, we developed an online survey using TurkPrime, an online survey platform, to assess how likely TurkPrime participants who screened positive for migraine using the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention screen were to pursue different delivery methods of the behavioral therapy. We report descriptive statistics and quantitative analyses. RESULTS:There were 401 participants. Median age was 34 [IQR: 29, 41] years. More than two thirds of participants (70.3%, 282/401) were women. Median number of headache days/ month was 5 [IQR: 2.83, 8.5]. Some (12.5%, 50/401) used evidence-based behavioral therapy for migraine. The participants reported that they were "somewhat likely" to pursue in-person or smartphone behavioral therapy and behavioral therapy covered by insurance but were neutral about pursuing the telephone-based behavioral therapy. Participants were "not very likely" to pay out of pocket for the behavioral therapy. Migraine-related disability as measured by the MIDAS grading score was associated with likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy in-person (P = .004), via telephone (P = .015), and via smart phone (P < .001), and covered by insurance (P = .001). However, migraine-related disability was not associated with likelihood to pursue out of pocket (P = .769) behavioral therapy. Pain intensity was predictive of likelihood of pursuing the behavioral therapy for migraine when covered by insurance. Other factors including education, employment, and headache days were not predictors. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:People with migraine prefer in-person and smartphone-based behavioral therapy to telephone-based behavioral therapy. Migraine-related disability is associated with likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy (independent of type of delivery of the behavioral therapy-in-person, telephone based or smartphone based). However, participants were not very likely to pay for the behavioral therapy.

OBJECTIVE:To outline strategies for the treatment of migraine which do not require in-person visits to clinic or the emergency department, and to describe ways that health insurance companies can remove barriers to quality care for migraine. BACKGROUND:COVID-19 is a global pandemic causing widespread infections and death. To control the spread of infection we are called to observe "social distancing" and we have been asked to postpone any procedures which are not essential. Since procedural therapies are a mainstay of headache care, the inability to do procedures could negatively affect our patients with migraine. In this manuscript we review alternative therapies, with particular attention to those which may be contra-indicated in the setting of COVID-19 infection. DESIGN/RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:The manuscript reviews the use of telemedicine visits and acute, bridge, and preventive therapies for migraine. We focus on evidence-based treatment where possible, but also describe "real world" strategies which may be tried. In each section we call out areas where changes to rules from commercial health insurance companies would facilitate better migraine care. CONCLUSIONS:Our common goal as health care providers is to maximize the health and safety of our patients. Successful management of migraine with avoidance of in-person clinic and emergency department visits further benefits the current urgent societal goal of maintaining social distance to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE:There has been a rise in urgent care centers throughout the country over the past 10 years, leading to an increase in patients accessing medical care in these locations. These centers advertise an alternative to the Emergency Department (ED) for the evaluation and treatment of urgent medical conditions. The goal of this analysis was to examine the use of urgent care visits for migraine within 2 urgent care centers within a large academic medical system in New York City. We examined the trends in management and treatment of migraine in these urgent care settings, as well as prescriptions and instructions given to this patient population upon discharge. We paid particular attention to whether the medications administered and prescribed on discharge were those recommended by American Headache Society migraine management guidelines. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with migraine diagnoses at 2 different urgent care locations within 1 large urban medical center. We determined baseline patient demographics, previous migraine characteristics, frequencies of reasons for urgent care visits as well as various medications administered, medications prescribed on discharge, and characteristics of patient outcomes post-discharge. RESULTS:Of the 78 patients who visited urgent care with a migraine diagnosis, 20 (25.6%) had a known primary care provider within the urgent care centers' healthcare system. More than three-fourths of all patients (78.2%) had a self-reported history of either recurrent headache or migraine prior to the urgent care visit. Of those with a documented frequency of prior headaches, 94.1% (32/34) had episodic migraine and 79.4% (27/34) experienced at most 1-2 headache days per month. Of those presenting to the urgent care during an episode of migraine, 12.3% (9/73) were given intravenous metoclopramide and none were given subcutaneous sumatriptan or intravenous prochlorperazine. Of those with reported nausea or vomiting with their migraine, 46.2% (18/39) received an anti-emetic at the visit and 33.3% (13/39) were given an anti-emetic prescription. Only 11.1% (6/54) of patients who did not have a record of previous triptan use were given a triptan prescription at the urgent care visit. CONCLUSIONS:The majority of patients in our study who sought medical treatment for migraine in these 2 urgent care centers were not established patients within the urgent care centers' healthcare system. While 93.6% (73/78) of patients were experiencing current pain upon presentation to the urgent care centers, only 12.3% (9/73) received administration of the medications with the highest level of evidence by the American Headache Society (Level B) for acute migraine treatment in an ED. In addition, the majority of patients with a migraine history presenting to the urgent care setting were not given triptans or anti-emetic prescriptions upon discharge from their urgent care visit. Having these migraine-specific prescriptions may improve self-treatment at home should a migraine attack recur.