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: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.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND:Relaxation, biofeedback, and cognitive behavioral therapy are evidence-based behavioral therapies for migraine. Despite such efficacy, research shows that only about half of patients initiate behavioral therapy recommended by their headache specialists. OBJECTIVE:Motivational interviewing (MI) is a widely used method to help patients explore and overcome ambivalence to enact positive life changes. We tested the hypothesis that telephone-based MI would improve initiation, scheduling, and attending behavioral therapy for migraine. METHODS:Single-blind randomized controlled trial comparing telephone-based MI to treatment as usual (TAU). Participants were recruited during their appointments with headache specialists at two sites of a New York City medical center. INCLUSION CRITERIA/METHODS:ages from 16 to 80, migraine diagnosis by United Council of Neurologic Subspecialty fellowship trained and/or certified headache specialist, and referral for behavioral therapy for prevention in the appointment of recruitment. EXCLUSION CRITERIA/METHODS:having done behavioral therapy for migraine in the past year. Participants in the MI group received up to 5 MI calls. TAU participants were called after 3 months for general follow-up data. The prespecified primary outcome was scheduling a behavioral therapy appointment, and secondary outcomes were initiating and attending a behavioral therapy appointment. RESULTS:76 patients were enrolled and randomized (MI = 36, TAU = 40). At baseline, the mean number of headache days was 12.0 ± 9.0. Self-reported anxiety was present for 36/52 (69.2%) and depression for 30/52 (57.7%). Follow-up assessments were completed for 77.6% (59/76, MI = 32, TAU = 27). The mean number of MI calls per participant was 2.69 ± 1.56 [0 to 5]. There was a greater likelihood of those in the MI group to initiating an appointment (22/32, 68.8% vs 11/27, 40.7%, P = .0309). There were no differences in appointment scheduling or attendance. Reasons stated for not initiating behavioral therapy were lack of time, lack of insurance/funding, prioritizing other treatments, and travel plans. CONCLUSIONS:Brief telephone-based MI may improve rates of initiation of behavioral therapy for migraine, but other barriers appear to lessen the impact on scheduling and attending behavioral therapy appointments.

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) published guidelines in July 2019 on the diagnosis and management of acute nontraumatic headaches in the emergency department, focusing predominantly on the diagnosis of subarachnoid hemorrhage and the role of imaging and lumbar puncture in diagnosis. The ACEP Clinical Policies document is intended to aide Emergency Physicians in their approach to patients presenting with acute headache and to improve the accuracy of diagnosis, while promoting safe patient care practices. The Clinical Policies document also highlights the need for future research into best practices to distinguish primary from secondary headaches and the efficacy and safety of current treatment options for acute headaches. The following commentary on these guidelines is intended to support and expand on these guidelines from the Headache specialists' perspective, written on behalf of the Refractory, Inpatient, Emergency Care section of the American Headache Society (AHS). The commentary have been reviewed and approved by Board of Directors of the AHS.