Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:In other disease states, adherence to behavioral therapies has gained attention, with a greater amount of studies discussing, defining, and optimizing adherence. For example, a meta-analysis formally discussed adherence in 25 studies of CBT for 11 different disorders, with only 6 of the 25 omitting addressing or defining adherence. Many studies have discussed the use of text messages, graph-based adherence rates, and email/telephone reminders to improve adherence. This paper examined the available literature regarding adherence to behavioral therapy for migraine as well as adherence to similar therapies in other disease states. The goal of this research is to apply lessons learned from adherence to behavioral therapy for other diseases in better understanding how we can improve adherence to behavioral therapy for migraine. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Treatment for migraine typically includes both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic therapies, including progressive muscle relaxation (PMR), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and biofeedback. Behavioral therapies have been shown to significantly reduce headache frequency and intensity, but high attrition rates and suboptimal adherence can undermine their efficacy. Traditionally, adherence to behavioral therapy has been defined by self-report, including paper headache diaries and assignments. In person attendance has also been employed as a method of defining and monitoring adherence. With the advent of personal electronics, measurements of adherence have shifted to include electronic-based methods such as computer-based programs and mobile-based therapies. Furthermore, some studies have taken advantage of electronic methods such as email reminders, push notifications, and other mobile-based reminders to optimize adherence. The JITA-I, a novel method of engaging individual patient adherence, has also been suggested as a possible method to improve adherence by tailoring engagement with a mobile health app-based on patient input. These novel methods may be utilized in behavioral therapy for migraine for further optimizing adherence. Few intervention studies to date have addressed the optimal ways to impact adherence to migraine behavioral therapy. Further research is required regarding adherence with behavioral therapies, specifically via mobile health interventions to better understand how to define and improve adherence via this novel forum. Once we are able to understand optimal methods of tracking adherence, we will be better equipped to understand the role of adherence in shaping outcomes for behavioral therapy in migraine.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Nonpharmacological interventions, such as biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy, and relaxation techniques are Level-A evidence-based treatments for headache. The impact of these interventions is often equivalent to or greater than pharmacological interventions, with fewer side effects. Despite such evidence, the rate of participation in nonpharmacological interventions for headache remains low. Once obstacles to optimizing use of behavioral interventions, such as local access to nonpharmacological treatment and primary headache providers are traversed, identification of barriers contributing to low adherence is imperative given the high levels of disability and cost associated with treating headache disorders. In this review of factors in adults associated with underuse of nonpharmacological interventions, we discuss psychological factors relevant to participation in nonpharmacological treatment, including attitudes and beliefs, motivation for change, awareness of triggers, locus of control, self-efficacy, acceptance, coping styles, personality traits, and psychiatric comorbidities associated with treatment adherence. Finally, future prospects and approaches to optimizing treatment matching and minimizing adherence issues are addressed. METHODS:An interdisciplinary team conducted this narrative review. Neuropsychologists conducted a literature search during the month of July 2017 using a combination of the keywords ("headache" or "migraine") and ("adherence" or "compliance") or "barriers to treatment" or various "psychological factors" discussed in this narrative review. Content experts, a psychiatrist, and a complementary and integrative health specialist provided additional commentary and input to this narrative review resulting in integration of additional noteworthy studies, book chapters and books. RESULTS:Various psychological factors, such as attitudes and beliefs, lack of motivation, poor awareness of triggers, external locus of control, poor self-efficacy, low levels of acceptance, and engagement in maladaptive coping styles can contribute to nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS:To maximize adherence, clinicians can assess and address an individual's level of treatment acceptance, beliefs that may present as barriers, readiness for change, locus of control, self-efficacy and psychiatric comorbidities. Identification of barriers to adherence as well as the application of relevant assessment and intervention techniques have the potential to facilitate adherence and ultimately improve treatment success.

Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) is an under-utilized Level A evidence-based treatment for migraine prevention. We studied the feasibility and acceptability of smartphone application (app)-based PMR for migraine in a neurology setting, explored whether app-based PMR might reduce headache (HA) days, and examined potential predictors of app and/or PMR use. In this single-arm pilot study, adults with ICHD3 migraine, 4+ HA days/month, a smartphone, and no prior behavioral migraine therapy in the past year were asked to complete a daily HA diary and do PMR for 20 min/day for 90 days. Outcomes were: adherence to PMR (no. and duration of audio plays) and frequency of diary use. Predictors in the models were baseline demographics, HA-specific variables, baseline PROMIS (patient-reported outcomes measurement information system) depression and anxiety scores, presence of overlapping pain conditions studied and app satisfaction scores at time of enrollment. Fifty-one patients enrolled (94% female). Mean age was 39 ± 13 years. The majority (63%) had severe migraine disability at baseline (MIDAS). PMR was played 22 ± 21 days on average. Mean/session duration was 11 ± 7 min. About half (47%) of uses were 1+ time/week and 35% of uses were 2+ times/week. There was a decline in use/week. On average, high users (PMR 2+ days/week in the first month) had 4 fewer days of reported HAs in month 2 vs. month 1, whereas low PMR users (PMR < 2 days/week in the first month) had only 2 fewer HA days in month 2. PROMIS depression score was negatively associated with the log odds of using the diary at least once (vs. no activity) in a week (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = [0.55, 0.85]) and of doing the PMR at least once in a week (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = [0.68, 0.91]). PROMIS anxiety was positively associated with using the diary at least once every week (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = [1.09, 1.73]) and with doing the PMR at least once every week (OR = 1.14 [95% CI = [1.02, 1.31]). In conclusion, about half of participants used smartphone-based PMR intervention based upon a brief, initial introduction to the app. App use was associated with reduction in HA days. Higher depression scores were negatively associated with diary and PMR use, whereas higher anxiety scores were positively associated.

Objective/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate the frequency with which migraine patients initiated behavioral migraine treatment following a headache specialist recommendation and the predictors for initiating behavioral migraine treatment. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We conducted a prospective cohort study of consecutive patients diagnosed with migraine to examine whether the patients initiated behavioral migraine treatment following a provider recommendation. The primary outcome was scheduling the initial visit for behavioral migraine treatment. Patients who initiated behavioral migraine treatment were compared with those who did not (demographics, migraine characteristics, and locus of control) with analysis of variance and chi-square tests. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of the 234 eligible patients, 69 (29.5%) were referred for behavioral treatment. Fifty-three (76.8%) patients referred for behavioral treatment were reached by phone. The mean duration from time of referral to follow-up was 76  (median 76, SD = 45) days. Thirty (56.6%) patients initiated behavioral migraine treatment. There was no difference in initiation of behavioral migraine treatment with regard to sex, age, age of diagnosis, years suffered with headaches, health care utilization visits, Migraine Disability Assessment Screen, and locus of control (P > 0.05). Patients who had previously seen a psychologist for migraine were more likely to initiate behavioral migraine treatment than patients who had not. Time constraints were the most common barrier cited for not initiating behavioral migraine treatment. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Less than one-third of eligible patients were referred for behavioral treatment, and only about half initiated behavioral migraine treatment. Future research should further assess patients' decisions regarding behavioral treatment initiation and methods for behavioral treatment delivery to overcome barriers to initiating behavioral migraine treatment.

BACKGROUND:Emergency department (ED) visits for migraine are burdensome to patients and to the larger healthcare system and society. Thus, it is important to determine strategies used to prevent ED visits and the common communication patterns between headache specialists and the ED team. OBJECTIVE:We sought to understand: (1) Whether headache specialists use headache management protocols. (2) The strategies they use to try and reduce the number of ED visits for headache. (3) Whether protocols are used in the EDs with which they are affiliated. (4) The level of satisfaction with the coordination of care between headache physicians and the ED. METHODS:We surveyed via SurveyMonkey members of the American Headache Society Emergency Department/Refractory/Inpatient (EDRI) Section to understand their practice regarding patients who call their office to be seen urgently, and to understand their communication with their local EDs. RESULTS:There were 96 eligible AHS members, 50 of whom responded to questionnaires either by email or in person (52%). Of these, 59% of respondents reported giving rescue treatment to their patients to manage acute attacks. Fifty-four percent reported using standard protocols for outpatients not responding to usual acute treatments. In the event of a request for urgent care, 12% of specialists reported bringing patients into the office most or all of the time, and 20% reported sending patients to the ED some or most of the time for headache management. Thirty-six percent reported prescribing a new medicine and 30% reported providing telephone counseling some/most/all of the time. Sixty percent reported that their ED has a protocol for migraine management. Overall, 38% were usually or very satisfied with the headache care in the ED. CONCLUSIONS:A substantial number of headache specialists are dissatisfied with the care their patients receive in the ED. More standardized protocols for ED visits by patients with known headache disorders, and clear guidelines for communication between ED providers and treating physicians, along with better methods for follow-up following discharge from the ED, might appear to improve this issue.