Faculty Bibliography

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.

BACKGROUND:Headache diaries are a mainstay of migraine management. While many commercial smartphone applications (apps) have been developed for people with migraine, little is known about how well these apps protect patient information and whether they are secure to use. OBJECTIVE:We sought to assess whether there are privacy issues surrounding apps so that physicians and patients could better understand what medical information patients are providing to the app companies, and the potential privacy implications of how the app companies (and other third parties) might use that information. METHODS:We conducted a systematic search of the most popular "headache" and "migraine" apps and developed a database of the types of data the apps requested for input by the user and whether the apps had clear privacy policies. We also examined the content of the privacy policies. RESULTS:Twenty-nine apps were examined (14 diary apps, 15 relaxation apps). Of the diary applications, 79% (11/14) had visible privacy policies. Of the diary apps with privacy policies, all (11/11) stated whether or not the app collects and stores information remotely. A total of 55% (6/11) stated that some user data were used to serve targeted advertisements. A total of 11/15 (73%) of the relaxation apps had privacy policies. CONCLUSIONS:Headache apps shared information with third parties, posing privacy risks partly because there are few legal protections against the sale or disclosure of data from medical apps to third parties.

Background: Little is known about how well headache smartphone applications (apps) protect patient information and whether they are secure to use. We sought to assess whether there are privacy issues surrounding apps so that physicians and patients could better understand what medical information patients are providing to the app companies, and the potential privacy implications of how the app companies (and other third parties) might use that information. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the most popular "headache" and "migraine" apps, abstracted from the apps the types of data the apps requested from users, and examined the existence and content of privacy policies. In particular, we analyzed the app function, data storage, and statements in the app';s privacy policy, app store entry, or other documentation to determine whether an app collected various types of personal information from the user such as (a) whether the app requests user input regarding the user';s identity, (b) headache condition (e.g. medications, triggers, dates and times of headaches), or (c) data that might be collected based on a user';s actions rather than their data entries. Results: Twenty-nine apps were examined (14 diary apps, 15 relaxation apps). Of the diary applications, 79% (11/14) had visible privacy policies. Of the diary apps with privacy policies, all (11/11) stated whether or not the app collects and stores information remotely. 55% (6/11) stated that some user data was used to serve targeted advertisements. Sixty four percent (7/11) of the policies (including those for apps without remote headache diary functionality) stated why they shared data with third parties and 18% (2/11) did not clearly explain the purpose of data sharing. 11/15 (73%) of the relaxa-tion apps had privacy policies. Conclusion: Of concern, there were several areas where information may not be transparent to migraine users or to the physicians recommending use of the apps. These include: 1. Whether apps have privacy policies and whether the apps'; policies provide "plain English" explanations about how user';s data is stored and how it is used. 2. Whether any user data (including the very fact that a user downloaded a headache app) could be used for advertising or marketing purposes. In conclusion, headache apps shared information with third parties, posing privacy risks partly because there are few legal protections against the sale or disclosure of data from medical apps to third parties