Faculty Bibliography

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

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Behavioral treatments for migraine prevention are safe and effective but underutilized in migraine management. Health message framing may be helpful in guiding patients with treatment decision making. The authors assessed associations between message framing and the willingness to seek migraine behavioral treatment among persons with a diagnosis of migraine headache. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A total of 401 individuals (median age=34 years [interquartile range, 12 years]) who screened positive for migraine, as determined by the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention questionnaire, were assessed. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of four message frames using TurkPrime: specific loss framing (N=101), specific gain framing (N=98), nonspecific loss framing (N=102), and nonspecific gain framing (N=100). The message frames were initially piloted for 56 participants and then revised by a headache specialist, with input from a communications specialist, and randomly distributed to the larger sample. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:More than two-thirds of participants (70.3%) were women. The median number of headache days per month was 5 (interquartile range, 5.3). Some of the participants (12.5%) had previously used evidence-based behavioral therapy for migraine. No significant differences in the willingness to pursue behavioral treatment for migraine between the four message framing groups were found. The median for all four types of message frames was 4 (interquartile range, 1; Kruskal-Wallis H, p=0.41). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Findings revealed that message framing was not associated with willingness to seek behavioral therapy for migraine.

BACKGROUND:The development of mobile health (mHealth) technologies is progressing at a faster pace than that of the science to evaluate their validity and efficacy. Under the International Committee of Journal Medical Editors (ICMJE) guidelines, clinical trials that prospectively assign people to interventions should be registered with a database before the initiation of the study. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to better understand the smartphone mHealth trials for high-burden neuropsychiatric conditions registered on ClinicalTrials.gov through November 2018, including the number, types, and characteristics of the studies being conducted; the frequency and timing of any outcome changes; and the reporting of results. METHODS:We conducted a systematic search of ClinicalTrials.gov for the top 10 most disabling neuropsychiatric conditions and prespecified terms related to mHealth. According to the 2016 World Health Organization Global Burden of Disease Study, the top 10 most disabling neuropsychiatric conditions are (1) stroke, (2) migraine, (3) major depressive disorder, (4) Alzheimer disease and other dementias, (5) anxiety disorders, (6) alcohol use disorders, (7) opioid use disorders, (8) epilepsy, (9) schizophrenia, and (10) other mental and substance use disorders. There were no date, location, or status restrictions. RESULTS:Our search identified 135 studies. A total of 28.9% (39/135) of studies evaluated interventions for major depressive disorder, 14.1% (19/135) of studies evaluated interventions for alcohol use disorders, 12.6% (17/135) of studies evaluated interventions for stroke, 11.1% (15/135) of studies evaluated interventions for schizophrenia, 8.1% (11/135) of studies evaluated interventions for anxiety disorders, 8.1% (11/135) of studies evaluated interventions for other mental and substance use disorders, 7.4% (10/135) of studies evaluated interventions for opioid use disorders, 3.7% (5/135) of studies evaluated interventions for Alzheimer disease or other dementias, 3.0% (4/135) of studies evaluated interventions for epilepsy, and 3.0% (4/135) of studies evaluated interventions for migraine. The studies were first registered in 2008; more than half of the studies were registered from 2016 to 2018. A total of 18.5% (25/135) of trials had results reported in some publicly accessible location. Across all the studies, the mean estimated enrollment (reported by the study) was 1078, although the median was only 100. In addition, across all the studies, the actual reported enrollment was lower, with a mean of 249 and a median of 80. Only about a quarter of the studies (35/135, 25.9%) were funded by the National Institutes of Health. CONCLUSIONS:Despite the increasing use of health-based technologies, this analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov suggests that only a few apps for high-burden neuropsychiatric conditions are being clinically evaluated in trials.

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: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.