Telehealth as a new care delivery model: The headache provider experience

Digital clinics for diagnosing and treating migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Several innovative digital technologies have begun to be applied to diagnosing and treating migraine. We reviewed the potential benefits and opportunities from delivering migraine care through comprehensive digital clinics.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are increasing applications of digitization to migraine diagnosis and management, including e-diaries, and patient self-management, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital care delivery appears to better engage chronic migraine sufferers who may struggle to present to physical clinics.

SUMMARY

Digital clinics appear to be a promising treatment modality for patients with chronic migraine. They potentially minimize travel time, shorten waiting periods, improve usability, and increase access to neurologists. Additionally, they have the potential to provide care at a much lower cost than traditional physical clinics. However, the current state of evidence mostly draws on case-reports, suggesting a need for future randomized trials comparing digital interventions with standard care pathways.

Evolving migraine management: Lithuania's telemedicine experience

Introduction

COVID-19 challenges have underscored the potential of telemedicine in migraine management. This study focuses on assessing patients' telemedicine experience for headache management in Lithuania and identifying key barriers and facilitators for its wider use.

Methods

A nationwide e-survey was conducted in 2023 via the Lithuanian Association of Migraine Patients' website, social media platforms, websites of public and private healthcare facilities, and migraine self-help groups. The survey covered sociodemographics, migraine characteristics, previous experience with teleconsultations for headaches with neurologists and general practitioners (GP), perceived advantages and disadvantages of telehealth, and preferred future consultation types.

Results

Eight hundred and forty seven respondents with a confirmed migraine diagnosis were analyzed. The majority were female (97.2%), with a median age of 35 (IQR 30-42) years and an average of 5 (IQR 3-9) monthly headache days (MHDs). 7.0% of respondents had chronic migraine (CM). Prior teleconsultations for headaches were reported by 35.2% of respondents, 26.2% with a GP and 17.0% with a neurologist (p < 0.0001). Teleconsultation outcomes included continuation of a prescribed treatment (84.7% for GPs and 83.3% for neurologists, p = 0.7295), initiation of new acute medications (12.2% for GPs with 70.4% reported as effective and 27.1% for neurologists with 84.6% effective, p = 0.0005 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Reasons for not undergoing remote neurology consultations: the lack of inquiry (69.7%), unavailability from neurologists (18.1%) and respondent's opposition to remote consultations (12.2%). Patients evaluated their experience with remote neurology services better than that of GPs (p = 0.0289). 67.3% of respondents preferred a mixed-mode approach for future consultations. In-person-only preference (29.0%) correlated with multiple factors, including history of remote primary neurology consultations (OR 5.89, p = 0.0022), lower education (OR 2.20, p = 0.0001), physically demanding work (OR 1.95, p = 0.0001), and number of drawbacks in telemedicine identified (OR 1.30, p < 0.0001), and worse experience of a prior remote GP consultation (OR 0.704, p < 0.0001). The main indicator of preference for remote-only consultations was the perception of fewer telemedicine disadvantages (OR 0.503, p = 0.0007).

Conclusions

Our findings confirm that telemedicine contributes to effective migraine management and is used limitedly in Lithuania. Despite one-third of respondents having experienced teleconsultations, significant barriers remain. Our study highlights a clear preference for a hybrid consultation type.

A Comparison of Patients' and Neurologists' Assessments of their Teleneurology Encounter: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Background and Objectives: To better understand patients' and neurologists' assessments of their experiences regarding effectiveness of teleneurology encounters. Methods: Following an audio-video telehealth visit, neurologists asked patients to participate in a survey-based research study about the encounter, and then, the neurologists also recorded their own evaluations. Data were analyzed using standard quantitative and qualitative techniques for dichotomous and ordered-category survey responses in this cross-sectional analysis. Results: The study included unique encounters between 187 patients and 11 general neurologists. The mean patient age was 49 ± 17.5 years. Two thirds of the patients (66.8%, 125/187) were female. One third (33.2%; 62) were patients new to the NYU Langone Health neurology practices. The most common patient chief complaints were headache (69/187, 36.9%), focal and generalized numbness or tingling (21, 11.2%), memory difficulty (15, 8%), spine-related symptoms (12, 6.4%), and vertigo (11, 5.9%). Most patients (94.7%, 177/187) reported that the teleneurology encounter satisfied their needs. Patients and their neurologists agreed that the experience was effective in 91% (162/178) of encounters, regardless of whether the visit was for a new or established patient visit. Discussion: More than 90% of new and established patients and their neurologists agreed that teleneurology encounters were effective despite some limitations of the examination, the occasional need for patient assistance, and technical difficulties. Our results provide further evidence to justify and to expand the clinical use of teleneurology.

Telemedicine in Headache Medicine: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of the study is to review and discuss the use of telemedicine in headache medicine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telemedicine for headache was most common in Europe. In recent years, however, telemedicine has been used broadly within headache medicine, including for pediatric patients and behavioral interventions. Several randomized clinical trials have shown that telemedicine is non-inferior to face-to-face visits. Multiple studies have reported substantial benefits associated with telemedicine, including high satisfaction rates, improved access to headache specialists, reduced travel, quicker visits, greater cost-effectiveness, reduced wait times, reduced no-show rates, and the increased comfort of remaining in one's home environment. The main limitation reported is the lack of a physical examination, including fundus assessment. Telemedicine has become a vital tool in headache patient care, with the data supporting its use for patient follow-up in particular.

A Novel Virtual-Based Comprehensive Clinical Approach to Headache Care

One major innovation, a result of the coronavirus pandemic, has been the proliferation of telemedicine. Telehealth can help solve the access problems that plague headache medicine, allowing patients in areas with no headache expertise to consult and work with a headache specialist. This is a retrospective chart review of patients seen by Neura Health, a comprehensive app-based telehealth headache center. Patients are seen by a specialist and, in addition to any medical recommendations, are given care plans individualized to their condition and recommendations at the end of their clinical appointments. The primary outcome of this study is a decrease in monthly headache days after 90 days; secondary outcomes include disability as determined by MIDAS score, depression determined by PHQ-9, patients' utilization of emergency department or urgent care resources, as well as their global impression of improvement. The deidentified outcomes of consecutive patients of Neura Health were evaluated from March 2022-March 2023. Subjects were excluded if they did not complete all forms, or if they did not receive a clinical or coaching follow-up appointment within 90 days. A total of 186 consecutive patients at Neura Health were identified during the review period. The median decrease in monthly headache days was 55.0% after a 90 day period, headache severity was decreased by 16.7%, global impression of improvement increased by 60.9%, disability decreased by 38.7%, depression decreased by 12.5% and ER/urgent care visits were decreased by 66.1%. A comprehensive, telehealth-based virtual headache-care model significantly decreased migraine frequency, severity and disability, and is able to decrease ER or urgent care visits.

Headache clinicians' perspectives on the remote monitoring of patients' electronic diary data: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

We assessed headache clinicians' viewpoints on potential remote access to patients' digital headache diary data and the practicalities of data utilization.

BACKGROUND

With the ubiquitous nature of electronic medical records and the existence of remote monitoring (RM) for many medical conditions, there is now the potential for remote symptom monitoring for patients with headache disorders. While patients are asked to utilize headache diaries, clinicians may or may not have access to the data before patient visits, and their perspectives regarding this emerging technology are currently unknown.

METHODS

After recruiting participants from the National Institutes of Health Pain Consortium Network, the American Headache Society Special Interest Section listservs, and Twitter and Facebook social media platforms, we conducted 20 semi-structured qualitative interviews of headache providers across the United States from various types of institutions and asked them their perspectives on remote access to patient headache diary data. We transcribed the interviews, which were then coded by two independent coders. Themes and sub-themes were developed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

All clinicians felt the RM data needed to be integrated into the electronic medical record. Six themes emerged from the interviews: (i) Clinician perspectives on how RM could be beneficial but at other times could create obstacles/challenges, (ii) operationally, data integration could benefit headache care, (iii) there should be initial logistical considerations for bringing RM into clinical care, (iv) education may need to be provided to both patients and clinicians, (v) there are likely research benefits associated with RM, and (vi) additional suggestions for considering potential integration of RM into practice.

CONCLUSIONS

While headache clinicians had mixed opinions on the benefits/challenges that RM presents to patient care, patient satisfaction, and visit time, new ideas emerged that may help advance the field.

Patient Factors in the Dose Selection of Oral Sumatriptan for Acute Migraine: A Post Hoc Analysis of Two Randomized Controlled Studies

INTRODUCTION

Patients are seeking greater involvement in their healthcare. It therefore may be beneficial to provide guidance on initial oral sumatriptan dose selection for the treatment of acute migraine in nontraditional settings, such as telehealth and other remote forms of medical care. We sought to determine whether clinical or demographic factors are predictive of oral sumatriptan dose preference.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of two clinical studies designed to determine preference for 25, 50, or 100 mg oral sumatriptan. Patients were aged 18-65 years with at least a 1 year history of migraine and experienced, on average, between one and six severe or moderately severe migraine attacks per month, with or without aura. Predictive factors were demographic measures, medical history, and migraine characteristics. Possibly predictive factors were identified using three analyses: classification and regression tree analysis, marginal significance (P < 0.1) within a full-model logistic regression, and/or selection within a forward-selection procedure in a logistic regression. A reduced model containing the variables identified in the preliminary analyses was developed. Due to differences in study design, data were not combined.

RESULTS

A dose preference was expressed by 167 patients in Study 1 and 222 patients in Study 2. Gender and medical history of urologic and/or psychological conditions in Study 1 and duration of migraine history, height, and medical history of endocrine or neurologic disease and headache severity in Study 2 were identified as possibly predictive. The predictive model showed low positive predictive value (PPV; 23.8%) and low sensitivity (21.7%) for Study 1. For Study 2, the model showed moderate PPV (60.0%) but low sensitivity (10.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

No clinical or demographic characteristics alone or in combination were consistently or strongly associated with preference for oral sumatriptan dose level.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The studies on which this paper is based were conducted before trial registration indexes were introduced.

Neurologists' Evaluations of Experience and Effectiveness of Teleneurology Encounters

Background and Objectives: To better understand neurologists' assessments of the experiences and effectiveness of teleneurology encounters. Methods: After completing an audio-video telehealth visit with verbally consenting patients, neurologists recorded their evaluations of the encounter. Data were analyzed using standard quantitative and qualitative techniques. Results: The study included unique encounters between 187 patients and 11 neurologists. The mean patient age was 49 ± 17.5 years. Two thirds of patients (66.8%, 125/187) were female. One third of patients (33.2%; 62) were new patients. The most common patient complaints were headache (69/187, 36.9%), focal and generalized numbness or tingling (21, 11.2%), memory difficulty (15, 8%), spine-related symptoms (12, 6.4%), and vertigo (11, 5.9%). Neurologists reported that they completed a virtual examination that provided enough information for medical decision-making in 94.9% of encounters (169/178, 9 missing responses). Fourteen of 25 examination elements important for medical decision-making could be performed sufficiently during virtual encounters. Examination assistance was needed for 16.4% (30/183) of patients, who were, on average, 17.3 years older than those who did not require assistance (62.9 years vs. 45.6 years, p = 0.0002). In 19.1% (34/178) of encounters, neurologists learned clinically relevant information from seeing patients in their homes. Neurologists' assessments of the effectiveness of encounters were not related to the presence (97.2%, 35/36 effective) or absence (95%, 134/141 effective) of technical difficulties (p = 0.5729) in 177 encounters (10 missing responses). Discussion: Neurologists reported that nearly 95% of teleneurology encounters were effective despite limitations of the virtual examination, occasional need for patient assistance, and technical difficulties.

Digital Therapeutics in Migraine Management: A Novel Treatment Option in the COVID-19 Era

Migraine is a chronic and often lifelong disease that directly affects over one billion people globally. Because access to migraine medical services is limited, only a minority of migraine patients are treated adequately. This situation worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital therapeutics (DTx) is an emerging therapeutic approach that opens up many new possibilities for remote migraine management. For instance, migraine management tools, online migraine diagnosis, guideline-based treatment options, digitally networked patients, and collecting anonymized information about migraine attacks and course parameters for scientific evaluation. Various applications of DTx in migraine management have been studied in recent years, such as the usefulness of digital migraine self-management tools in diagnosing and tracking migraine attacks, and the efficacy and safety of digital cognitive behavioural therapy. However, the development of DTx is still in its infancy and still faces many obstacles. The primary goal of this study is to review the latest research on DTx in migraine management, identify challenges, and outline future trends.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on headache-related disability among young adults with migraine

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to explore the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and headache-related disability among a sample of young adults with migraine.

BACKGROUND

Comorbid psychological symptoms compound migraine-related disability. Due to COVID-19 pandemic procedures, many students experienced institutional closures and corresponding increases in depression, stress, and anxiety. The present study sought to examine changes in headache-related disability before (Spring and Fall of 2019) and during (Fall of 2020 and Spring 2021) the COVID-19 pandemic and whether psychological symptoms mediated such changes.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study at a southern U.S. university assessed 365 individuals with migraine on headache and psychological variables, comparing those surveyed before COVID-19 with another group surveyed during the pandemic. The direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 status (pre- versus during COVID-19) on headache-related disability through depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms were assessed.

RESULTS

Statistically higher levels of depression, (M = 13.9 [SD = 12.2] vs. M = 8.7 [SD = 8.7], p < 0.001), anxiety (12.3 [10.0] vs. 9.7 [8.2], p = 0.01), and stress symptoms (17.6 [10.2] vs. 13.2 [7.9], p < 0.001) were endorsed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The direct path from COVID-19 status to headache-related disability was significant and negative, c' = -1.6 (95% CI: -3.1, -0.1). Anxiety (b = 0.3 [95% CI: 0.01, 0.9]) and depression (b = 0.7 [95% CI: 0.07, 1.4]) symptoms acted as mediators of this relationship, rendering the total effect nonsignificant and negating the lowered disability observed during the pandemic. Only depression symptoms remained a significant mediator after controlling for headache frequency (b = 0.7 [95% CI: 0.09, 1.4]).

CONCLUSIONS

Increased depression and anxiety symptoms attenuated the improvements in disability associated with the pandemic. As such, interventions that address comorbid psychological symptoms may hold value in reducing headache-related disability and improving outcomes for young adults whose headache developed or worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Digital headache self-management interventions for patients with a primary headache disorder: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This article systematically reviews the empirical literature examining the efficacy of digital headache management interventions for patients with a primary headache disorder.

BACKGROUND

Digital headache management interventions provide opportunities to improve access to behavioral headache interventions to underserved groups.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCO (PsycInfo, Education Research Complete, ERIC, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection) and reference review was conducted. Included studies had to recruit a sample with a primary headache diagnosis, be a randomized controlled trial including a digital component, assess a headache outcome (i.e., frequency, duration, severity, intensity, disability) or quality of life, and be published in English. Two authors independently extracted data for included studies. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with unique interventions met inclusion criteria. More than half of the studies were pilots; however, nearly 70% (9/13) demonstrated significant between-group or within-group improvements on one or more headache-related outcomes. All interventions included some form of relaxation training and the majority were delivered via interactive website. While fewer than half the studies report participant race and/or ethnicity, of those that do, 83% (5/6) reported a predominately White/Caucasian sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy testing of digital headache interventions is in its infancy with the majority of these studies relying on pilot studies with small samples comprised of homogenous patient populations. Interactive websites were the most common digital medium to deliver digital headache management interventions and have demonstrated promising results. Further testing using large-scale randomized controlled trials and exploration of other digital tools is warranted. Future studies with more diverse samples are needed to inform health equity of digital headache interventions.

Telehealth perceptions and utilization for the delivery of headache care before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the utilization of telehealth for headache services within the Veterans Health Administration's facilities housing a Headache Centers of Excellence and multiple stakeholder's perspectives to inform future telehealth delivery.

BACKGROUND

Telehealth delivery of headache treatment may enhance patient access to headache care, yet little is known about the utilization or patient and provider perceptions of telehealth for veterans with headache.

METHODS

This mixed-methods study analyzed multiple data sources: (1) administrative data, which included 58,798 patients with medically diagnosed headache disorders, documented in at least one outpatient visit, from August 2019 through September 2020 from the 12 Veterans Health Administration's facilities with a Headache Center of Excellence and (2) qualitative semistructured interviews with 20 patients and 43 providers 6 months before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and 10 patients and 20 providers 6 months during the beginning of the pandemic.

RESULTS

During the pandemic, in-person visits declined from 12,794 to 6099 (52.0%), whereas video (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 2.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.66, 2.52), and telephone visits (IRR = 15.2, 95% CI = 10.7, 21.6) significantly increased. Utilization differed based on patient age, race/ethnicity, and rurality. Patients and providers perceived value in using telehealth, yet had limited experience with this modality pre-pandemic. Providers preferred in-person appointments for initial encounters and telehealth for follow-up visits. Providers and patients identified benefits and challenges of telehealth delivery, often relying on multiple delivery methods for telehealth to enhance patient engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

The uptake of telehealth delivery of headache-related care rapidly expanded in response to the pandemic. Patients and providers were amenable to utilizing telehealth, yet also experienced technological barriers. To encourage equitable access to telehealth and direct resources to those in need, it is crucial to understand patient preferences regarding in-person versus telehealth visits and identify patient groups who face barriers to access.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people living with migraine: Results of the MiCOAS qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an ongoing global health crisis that has had a range of impacts on people living with migraine.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews performed as part of the Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System project, a multi-stage Food and Drug Administration-grant funded program to develop a patient-centered core set of outcome measures for use in migraine clinical trials, offered an opportunity to explore the experience of living with migraine during the pandemic as well as to examine whether migraine treatment priorities, symptoms, and associated disability changed due to the pandemic. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in the United States between the summer and fall of 2020 with 40 individuals with self-reported, medically diagnosed migraine who self-reported that they had not tested positive for or been diagnosed with COVID-19.

RESULTS

Seventy percent (n = 28) of the sample reported ≥1 pandemic-related impact on their life with migraine. Fourteen participants reported both positive and negative impacts, twelve reported negative impacts only, and two reported positive impacts only. Among those reporting ≥1 pandemic-related impact, nine participants (32%) reported more frequent and five (17%) reported less frequent migraine attacks. Other negative impacts included interrupted medical care (n = 9; 32%), and greater stress (n = 13; 46%). The most frequent positive impact reported was greater access to health care (n = 8; 29%). Ictal and interictal symptoms were not noted to change due to the pandemic, but some respondents reported less disability due to increased flexibility of schedules and reduced expectations. Treatment priorities did not change due to the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

The global COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in both negative and positive impacts for people living with migraine. Lessons to be considered when moving into a post-pandemic world include benefits of and satisfaction with telehealth and the benefits and importance of healthy lifestyle habits and flexibility such as improved sleep, reduced stress, and fewer social expectations.