De-Stigmatizing Migraine - With Words

Advocacy Connection Team-Now educational program for headache fellows and patients/caregivers: Assessment of educational objectives

OBJECTIVE

To assess for improvement in comfort in participating in advocacy for migraine and headache disorders and knowledge needed for successful advocacy.

BACKGROUND

The Advocacy Connection Team (ACT)-Now program is an educational program offered through Miles for Migraine, a non-profit advocacy organization. It is designed to teach headache fellows and patients advocacy skills.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional pre-test-post-test design, the 2021 ACT-Now cohort of 98 participants were administered a set of 11 pre-course survey questions identifying their role (healthcare provider/headache fellow or patient/caregiver), baseline knowledge of migraine-related disability and stigma, and baseline engagement and comfort with advocating. The post-course survey questions were the same as the pre-course questions, with the addition of one question assessing knowledge of migraine-related disability, additional questions addressing comfort levels advocating with insurance and policymakers, as well as creating an advocacy plan.

RESULTS

For the pre-course survey, 69 participants responded and for the post-course survey, 40 participants responded. Compared to the pre-course survey, participants were able to correctly identify epidemiological data about migraine following the ACT-Now course (pre-course 46% correct, post-course 58% correct, p = 0.263). There was also an increase in the comfort level of participants in advocacy activities, including the creation of an advocacy action plan (pre-course 23% were "very comfortable" advocating, post-course 63%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate that ACT-Now is effective at improving advocacy skills in a mixed cohort of patients and headache fellows, giving them the skills to create advocacy plans and engage with other patients and physicians, payers, and policymakers to create a more understanding, equitable and compassionate world for persons with migraine and other headache diseases.

Medication overuse headache

Medication overuse headache (MOH) is a secondary headache disorder attributed to overuse of acute headache medications by a person with an underlying headache disorder, usually migraine or tension-type headache. MOH is common among individuals with 15 or more headache days per month. Although MOH is associated with substantial disability and reductions in quality of life, this condition is often under-recognized. As MOH is both preventable and treatable, it warrants greater attention and awareness. The diagnosis of MOH is based on the history and an unremarkable neurological examination, and is made according to the diagnostic criteria of the International Classification of Headache Disorders third edition (ICHD-3). Pathophysiological mechanisms of MOH include altered descending pain modulation, central sensitization and biobehavioural factors. Treatment of MOH includes the use of headache preventive therapies, but essential to success is eliminating the cause, by reducing the frequency of use of acute headache medication, and perhaps withdrawing the overused medication altogether. Appropriate treatment is usually highly effective, leading to reduced headache burden and acute medication consumption.

The not so hidden impact of interictal burden in migraine: A narrative review

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurological disease of varying attack frequency. Headache attacks that are accompanied by a combination of impact on daily activities, photophobia and/or nausea are most commonly migraine. The headache phase of a migraine attack has attracted more research, assessment tools and treatment goals than any other feature, characteristic, or phase of migraine. However, the migraine attack may encompass up to 4 phases: the prodrome, aura, headache phase and postdrome. There is growing recognition that the burden of migraine, including symptoms associated with the headache phase of the attack, may persist between migraine attacks, sometimes referred to as the "interictal phase." These include allodynia, hypersensitivity, photophobia, phonophobia, osmophobia, visual/vestibular disturbances and motion sickness. Subtle interictal clinical manifestations and a patient's trepidation to make plans or commitments due to the unpredictability of migraine attacks may contribute to poorer quality of life. However, there are only a few tools available to assess the interictal burden. Herein, we examine the recent advances in the recognition, description, and assessment of the interictal burden of migraine. We also highlight the value in patients feeling comfortable discussing the symptoms and overall burden of migraine when discussing migraine treatment needs with their provider.

Advocacy for Migraine Relief: Strategic Planning to Eliminate the Burden

Purpose of Review

The goal of this article is to describe migraine advocacy as an essential means to advance the field of headache medicine. Special attention is spent outlining advocacy initiatives and priorities.

Recent Findings

There is little written about “migraine advocacy” in the literature. However, organizational and expert priorities include advocating for policies that improve systems of care, telemedicine, education, research, and public initiatives that reduce health disparities and the stigma of migraine.

Summary

This summary includes the latest advocacy efforts to support policies that may improve migraine care, strengthen the field of headache medicine, and eliminate the burden of migraine.

Stigma and Migraine: Developing Effective Interventions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Migraine and other primary headache disorders do not receive adequate research funding, medical resources, or other forms of structural support relative to their prevalence and the disability they cause. In recent research, scholars have argued that stigma associated with headache disorders explains some of this discrepancy. This review will discuss (1) the factors contributing to stigma toward migraine and other primary headache disorders, (2) how structural and enacted stigma may perpetuate individual disability, (3) the impact of internalized stigma, and (4) interventions to mitigate stigma toward headache disorders with an emphasis on outcome monitoring. The review will also propose new areas of stigma research in need of further investigation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent research shows that discrimination can exacerbate chronic pain. Stigma profoundly affects everything from the allocation of federal research funds and healthcare resources to individual patients' self-efficacy and ability to care for themselves. Understanding the stigma of migraine and learning how to develop effective interventions to mitigate this stigma will increase access to appropriate migraine care, improve healthcare providers' ability to care for their migraine patients, and help advocates reverse policies that discriminate against those with migraine. It is important to closely monitor outcomes of anti-stigma efforts for both positive and negative consequences and take note of outcomes and "lessons learned" from anti-stigma campaigns for other diseases.

Episodic and Chronic Migraine in Primary Care

OBJECTIVE

To inform migraine care model development by assessing differences between patients with chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) in the current state of treatment, disability, patient satisfaction, and quality improvement opportunities.

BACKGROUND

Efficient and focused use of scarce resources will be needed to address challenges within large populations of migraine patients.

METHODS

We deployed a cross-sectional survey study of randomly selected migraine patients within a community primary care practice.

RESULTS

There were 516 survey respondents (516/1804 [30%] response rate). CM patients were more likely than EM patients to report care from a neurologist (76/110 [69%] vs 229/406 [56%]; P = .0026), and higher disability according to the Migraine Disability Assessment and Headache Impact Test - 6 questionnaires (P < .0001). CM patients were less likely than EM patients to report overall satisfaction with care (16/110 [38%] vs 156/406 [66%], P = .0002), satisfaction with access to care (17/110 [33%] vs 176/406 [68%], P < .0001), and advice they needed (16/110 [31%] vs 160/406 [62%], P < .0001). Most patients with migraine had been offered triptan medications 377/516 (78%). Overall, 156/516 (31%) of individuals were currently taking any medication for migraine prevention, and 208/516 (40%) including botulinum toxin injections. CM patients were more likely to be taking preventive medication (39/110 [36%] vs 117/406 [29%], P = .0191) and report familiarity with the diagnosis of medication-overuse headache than patients with EM (80/110 [81%] vs 256/406 [69%], P = .0178).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed differences between patients with chronic and EM and expected care delivery improvement opportunities for migraine patients in primary care. CM patients report higher levels of disability and less satisfaction with access to perceived needed medical advice and care. These findings support the need to further develop and study novel care models to efficiently and effectively deliver high-quality care and expertise in limited supply to a diverse migraine population.