Characterizing barriers to care in migraine: multicountry results from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes - International (CaMEO-I) study

OBJECTIVE

To assess rates of traversing barriers to care to access optimal clinical outcomes in people with migraine internationally.

BACKGROUND

People in need of medical care for migraine should consult a health care professional knowledgeable in migraine management, obtain an accurate diagnosis, and receive an individualized treatment plan, which includes scientific society guideline-recommended treatments where appropriate.

METHODS

The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International (CaMEO-I) Study was a cross-sectional, web-based survey conducted from July 2021 through March 2022 in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States (US). Respondents who met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria for migraine and had Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) scores of ≥ 6 (i.e., mild, moderate, or severe disability) were deemed to need medical care and were included in this analysis. Minimally effective treatment required that participants were currently consulting a health care professional for headache (barrier 1), reported an accurate diagnosis (barrier 2), and reported use of minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment (barrier 3; based on American Headache Society 2021 Consensus Statement recommendations). Proportions of respondents who successfully traversed each barrier were calculated, and chi-square tests were used to assess overall difference among countries.

RESULTS

Among 14,492 respondents with migraine, 8,330 had MIDAS scores of ≥ 6, were deemed in need of medical care, and were included in this analysis. Current headache consultation was reported by 35.1% (2926/8330) of respondents. Compared with the US, consultation rates and diagnosis rates were statistically significantly lower in all other countries except France where they were statistically significantly higher. Total appropriate treatment rates were also statistically significantly lower in all other countries compared with the US except France, which did not differ from the US. All 3 barriers were traversed by only 11.5% (955/8330) of respondents, with differences among countries (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Of people with migraine in need of medical care for migraine, less than 15% traverse all 3 barriers to care. Although rates of consultation, diagnosis, and treatment differed among countries, improvements are needed in all countries studied to reduce the global burden of migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NA.

Development and initial validation of the Kiswahili version of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS-K) questionnaire

BACKGROUND

The Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) is one of the tools for measuring and understanding disability caused by migraine. The purpose of this study was to validate a Kiswahili translation of the MIDAS (MIDAS-K) among patients suffering from migraines in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

METHODS

A psychometric validation study of MIDAS was conducted after translation to Kiswahili. A total of 70 people with migraine were recruited by systematic random sampling and they completed the MIDAS-K questionnaire twice, 10-14 days apart. Internal consistency, split-half reliability, and test-retest reliability, convergent and divergent validity were examined.

RESULTS

70 patients (F:M; 59:11) with median (25th, 75th) headache days of 4.0 (2.0, 7.0) were recruited. Twenty-eight out of 70 (40%) of the population had severe disability on MIDAS-K. The overall test-retest reliability of MIDAS-K was high (ICC = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.78-0.92 p < 0.001). Factor analysis showed a two-factor structure; the number of days missed and reduced efficiency. MIDAS-K had a good internal consistency of 0.78, good split-half reliability of 0.80 and acceptable test-retest reliability for all items as well as total MIDAS-K scores.

CONCLUSION

The Kiswahili version of the MIDAS questionnaire (MIDAS-K) is a valid, responsive, and reliable tool to measure migraine-related disability among Tanzanians and other Swahili-speaking populations. Quantification of migraine disability in the region will guide policies directed at care allotment, improvement in the provision of interventions for migraine, as well as enhancement of health-related quality of life for patients with migraine in our region.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements in Temporomandibular Disorders and Headaches: Summary of Measurement Properties and Applicability

INTRODUCTION

Several patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are available in the literature to support the evaluation and diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders and headaches. However, clinicians and researchers usually complain that they had no education on PROMs and low overall knowledge about PROMs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to summarize, describing the measurement properties and clinical applicability of the main condition-specific PROMs available in the literature to the assessment of patients with Temporomandibular Disorders and Headaches.

METHODS

The current manuscript reviewed 10 PROMs commonly used in the field. Four instruments about functioning and disability: 1. Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), 2. Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CF-PDI), 3. 8-item and 20-item Jaw Functional Limitation Scale (JFLS), and 4. Manchester Orofacial Pain Disability Scale (MOPDS). Two instruments about headache-related disability: 5. Headache-Related Disability Index (HDI) and 6. Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6). Three instruments focused on TMD and headache screening: 7. 3Q/TMD, 8. Short-Form Anamnestic Fonseca Index (SFAI), 9. Headache Screening Questionnaire. In addition, one instrument about maladaptive beliefs regarding pain and injury: 10. Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular Disorders (TSK-TMD).

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge about the limitations and applicability of the PROMs commonly used to assess TMDs and Headaches can help clinicians and researchers to obtain reliable and valid outcomes to support the decision-making process. The current review recognizes the importance of using patient-reported outcome measures in research and clinical practice. However, our findings call the attention that further studies on the measurement properties of such instruments are imperative.

Can Headache Profile Predict Future Disability: A Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine if headache profile can predict future disability in patients with tension-type headache (TTH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-three individuals with TTH were recruited. To be included in the study participants needed to fulfill the International Headache Society classification's criteria for episodic or chronic TTH form and to be at least 18 years old. Baseline clinical outcomes (headache and neck-related disability, kinesiophobia, self-efficacy, and anxiety) and physical outcomes (neck extensors muscles maximum voluntary contraction) were collected for all participants. A prospective data collection of headache characteristics (intensity and frequency) was conducted using daily SMS or e-mail over a 1-month period. Headache-related disability was assessed at the 3-month follow-up and was used as the disability criterion for TTH.

RESULTS

Correlations showed that the number of years with headache (r=0.53, P<0.001), self-reported neck pain intensity (r=0.29, P=0.025), headache frequency (r=0.60, P<0.001) and intensity (r=0.54, P<0.001), anxiety (r=0.28; P=0.031), as well as neck-related disability (r=0.64, P<0.001) were correlated to headache-related disability assessed at 3 months. Multiple regression showed that these determinants can be used to predict headache disability (R =0.583). Headache frequency (β=0.284) was the best individual predictor.

DISCUSSION

Results showed that TTH frequency and intensity and the presence of concomitant infrequent migraine are predictors of future disability over a 3-month period. Further studies are needed to evaluate the contribution of other potential physical outcomes on headache-related disability.

Factors associated with headache and neck pain among telecommuters - a five days follow-up

BACKGROUND

The current sanitary crisis brought on by the COVID-19 recently forced a large proportion of workers to adopt telecommuting with limited time to plan transition. Given that several work-related risk factors are associated with headache and neck pain, it seems important to determine those associated with headache and neck pain in telecommuters. The main objective of this study was to identify which telecommuting and individual associated factors are related with headache and neck pain occurrence in telecommuters over a five days follow-up. The second objective was to evaluate the impact of wearing a headset on headache and neck pain intensity in telecommuters.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty-two participants in telecommuting situation were recruited. Baseline assessment included sociodemographic data, headache and neck pain-related disability (6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire (NBQ)), headache and neck pain frequency and intensity as well as questions about the wearing of a headset (headset wearing, headset type and headset wearing hours). A prospective data collection of headache, neck pain and headset wearing was conducted using daily e-mail over a 5-day follow-up. A stepwise multivariate regression model was performed to determine associated factors of headache or neck pain occurrence during the follow-up. A t-test was conducted to assess the impact of headset wearing on headache and neck pain intensity during the follow-up.

RESULTS

Regarding headache, the stepwise multivariate regression model showed that the HIT-6 score was associated with future headache occurrence in telecommuters (OR (95% CI) = 1.094 (1.042-1.148); R² = 0.094; p <  0.001). For neck pain, the stepwise multivariate regression showed that the NBQ score was related to future neck pain occurrence in telecommuters (OR (95% CI) = 1.182 (1.102-1.269); R² = 0.182; p <  0.001). T-test showed no difference between participants that wore a headset and participant that did not wore a headset on mean headache (p = 0.94) and neck pain (p = 0.56) intensity during the five days follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Although several work-related risk factors are associated with headache and neck pain in workers, telecommuting did not present the same risks. Working set-up did not have a significant impact on headache and neck pain as headache-related disability was the only associated factor of future headache episodes and neck-pain related disability was the only associated factor of future neck pain episodes. Also, wearing a headset had no impact on headache and neck pain in telecommuters.

Severe migraine and its control: A proposal for definitions and consequences for care

Currently many patients with severe migraine do not receive appropriate treatment and are never referred to specialist headache centres. On the other hand, specialist headache centres are frequently attended by patients whose migraines could be managed adequately in the community. One reason for this may be the absence of standardised definitions of migraine severity and control and of a treatment algorithm for orientating difficult-to-treat patients to specialist headache centres. Based on a review of the relevant literature and consensus meetings, proposals have been made for these items. We propose that migraine should be considered severe if headache frequency is at least eight migraine days per month or, if headaches are less frequent, the HIT-6 score is ≥60 or ≥50% of headaches require complete interruption of activity. The proposed definition of migraine control is defined on the basis of appropriate response to acute headache therapy and to preventative therapy. A treatment algorithm is proposed to assess migraine control regularly and to adapt therapy accordingly. These proposals may contribute to developing and testing strategies for management of severe disease with appropriate and effective preventive treatment strategies. With the anticipated introduction of new possibilities for migraine prevention in the near future, the time is ripe for a holistic approach to migraine management.

Validity and reliability of the Portuguese version of the modified Migraine Disability Assessment

BACKGROUND

Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) is a useful tool to measure headache-related disability. Modified MIDAS with 4-week recall period reduces recall bias and improves accuracy of the results. This study aimed at validating mMIDAS in Portuguese.

METHODS

Studied population consisted of adult migraine patients attending a headache outpatient clinic. Reliability was assessed by internal consistency and reproducibility in a 3-week test-retest. Content validity was evaluated by two expert panels. Construct validity was tested by comparing mMIDAS-P index in socioeconomic and clinical patient groups and scale unidimensionality was evidenced by factor analysis. Criterion validity was tested using EQ-5D-5L and HADS.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients, 88% female, mean age of 44 years, participated. They had, in average, 9.7 headache days in previous month, pain averaging 7.5/10. About 69.9% were on a migraine prophylactic treatment, and 42.4% had severe disability; 29.4 and 13.0% showed, respectively, moderate/severe anxiety and depression. Content validity showed that mMIDAS-P is simple and clinically useful. It did not show to be determined by patient's sociodemographic characteristics and it was correlated with depression scale and EQ-5D-5L. Test-retest demonstrated high reproductive reliability and good internal consistency.

CONCLUSION

mMIDAS-P is valid and reliable. We strongly recommend it for clinical and research use.

Influence of headache pain intensity and frequency on migraine-related disability in chronic migraine patients treated with OnabotulinumtoxinA

Background

There is a need to establish which are the more relevant headache-related outcomes that have an impact on our patient’s lives to accurately evaluate treatment response in daily clinical practice.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relevance of clinical trial endpoints in clinical real-life disability improvement in response to migraine preventive treatment with OnabotulinumtoxinA.

Methods

This is an observational prospective study. We included patients with chronic migraine fulfilling ICHD-3beta/3 criteria. We prospectively collected data of 8 headache-related and acute medication use endpoints recommended by the Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine. We evaluated their impact on disability improvement after 6 months of treatment with OnabotulinumtoxinA. We defined as a responder in disability, patients with ≥50% MIDAS score reduction after 2 cycles of treatment following PREEMPT protocol. We performed an analysis to measure the impact of improvement in the evaluated outcome measures according to perceived disability in clinical practice.

Results

We included 395 patients (85.1% women, mean age 46.7 ± 12.6 years). Mean headache frequency at baseline was 26.5 ± 5.2 headache days/month. After 6 months, 49.1% of patients were headache-related disability responders. From all outcome measures collected, variables independently associated to disability improvement were headache days reduction (p = 0.02) and ≥ 50% pain intensity reduction (p = 0.04). A ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency or pain intensity showed similar influence on disability improvement after treatment.

Conclusions

Headache pain intensity is as important as frequency when evaluating the clinical response and impact on patient headache-related disability after migraine preventive treatment with OnabotulinumtoxinA.

Outcome measures for assessing the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in frequent episodic or chronic migraine: a Delphi study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this Delphi survey was to establish an international consensus on the most useful outcome measures for research on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for migraine. This is important, since guidelines for pharmacological trials recommend measuring the frequency of headaches with 50% reduction considered a clinically meaningful effect. It is unclear whether the same recommendations apply to complementary (or adjunct) non-pharmacological approaches, whether the same cut-off levels need to be considered for effectiveness when used as an adjunct or stand-alone intervention, and what is meaningful to patients.

SETTING

University-initiated international survey.

PARTICIPANTS

The expert panel was chosen based on publications on non-pharmacological interventions in migraine populations and from personal contacts. 35 eligible researchers were contacted, 12 agreed to participate and 10 completed all 3 rounds of the survey. To further explore how migraine patients viewed potential outcome measures, four migraine patients were interviewed and presented with the same measurement tools as the researchers.

PROCEDURES

The initial Delphi round was based on a systematic search of the literature for outcome measures used in non-pharmacological interventions for headache. Suggested outcome measures were rated by each expert, blinded towards the other members of the panel, for its usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from definitely not useful to extremely useful. Results were combined using median values and IQRs. Tools rated overall as definitely or probably not useful were excluded from subsequent rounds. Experts further suggested additional outcome measures that were presented to the panel in subsequent rounds. Additionally, experts were asked to rank the most useful tools and provide information on feasible cut-off levels for effectiveness for the three highest ranked tools.

RESULTS

Results suggest the use of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and headache frequency as primary outcome measures. Patient experts suggested the inclusion of a measure of quality of life and evaluation of associated symptoms and fear of attacks.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations are for the use of the MIDAS, the HIT-6 and headache frequency, in combination with an outcome measure for quality of life. Associated symptoms and fear of attacks should also be considered as secondary outcomes, if relevant for the individual target population. The cut-off level for effectiveness should be lower for non-pharmacological interventions, especially when used as an adjunct to medication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

German Register of Clinical Trials (DRKS00011777).

The role of psychosocial risk factors in the burden of headache

Purpose: Psychosocial risk factors are common in headache patients and affect the impact of headache in multiple ways. The aim of our study was to assess how psychosocial risk factors correlate with the headache impact test-6 (HIT-6). To our knowledge this is the first study to evaluate the impact of several psychosocial factors on the HIT-6 score.

Patients and methods: Our study population consisted of 469 Finnish female employees reporting headache during the past year. Psychosocial risk factors were assessed using validated, self-administered questionnaires: the generalized anxiety disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7) for anxiety, the major depression inventory (MDI) for depressive symptoms, the ENRICHD short social support instrument (ESSI) for social isolation, the cynical distrust scale for hostility and the Bergen burnout indicator (BBI-15) for work stress.

Results: Exploratory factor analysis of the HIT-6 scores revealed two factors, one describing psychological and quality of life aspects affected by headache and the other describing severity of pain and functional decline. Internal consistency of the HIT-6 was 0.87 (95%CI: 0.85–0.89). Correlations between the total HIT-6 score and all measured psychosocial risk factors except for hostility were weak, but statistically significant.

Conclusion: The HIT-6 questionnaire has good construct validity and it describes reliably and independently the impact of headache without interference of psychosocial factors in general working-aged female population.

Comparing neck extensor muscle function in asymptomatic Canadian adults and adults with tension-type headache: a cross-sectional study

AIM

To further the understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying tension-type headache (TTH) by comparing the endurance and strength of neck extensor muscles under acute muscle fatigue in participants with TTH and asymptomatic participants.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of neck extensor muscle performance. Asymptomatic participants and participants with TTH were recruited via social media platforms and from the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières community and employees. A total of 44 participants with TTH and 40 asymptomatic participants took part in an isometric neck extensor endurance task performed at 60% of their maximum voluntary contraction. Inclusion criteria for the headache group were to be older than 18 years old and to fulfil the International Headache Society classification's criteria for either frequent episodic or chronic TTH. Clinical (self-efficacy, anxiety, neck disability and kinesiophobia) and physical parameters (neck extensors maximum voluntary contraction, endurance time, muscle fatigue) as well as characteristics of headache episodes (intensity, frequency and associated disability) were collected for all participants. Surface electromyography was used to document upper trapezius, splenius capitis and sternocleidomastoids muscle activity and muscle fatigue.

RESULTS

Both groups displayed similar neck extensor muscle endurance capacity with a mean difference of 6.2 s (p>0.05) in favour of the control group (control=68.1±32.3; TTH=61.9±20.1). Similarly, participants in the headache group showed comparable neck extensor muscle strength (95.9±30.4 N) to the control group (111.3±38.7 N). Among participants with TTH, those scoring as severely incapacitated by headaches were the ones with higher neck-related disability (F[1,44]=10.77; p=0.002), the more frequent headache episodes (F[1,44]=6.70; p=0.01) and higher maximum headache intensity (F[1,44]=10.81; p=0.002).

CONCLUSION

A fatigue task consisting of isometric neck extension cannot efficiently differentiate participants with TTH from asymptomatic participants.

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and reliability of the German version of the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire

Background

The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) is a brief questionnaire and measures headache-related disability. This study aimed to translate and cross-culturally adapt the original English version of the MIDAS to German and to test its reliability.

Methods

The standardized translation process followed international guidelines. The pre-final version was tested for clarity and comprehensibility by 34 headache sufferers. Test-retest reliability of the final version was quantified by 36 headache patients completing the MIDAS twice with an interval of 48 h. Reliability was determined by intraclass correlation coefficients and internal consistency by Cronbach’s α.

Results

All steps of the translation process were followed, documented and approved by the developer of the MIDAS. The expert committee discussed in detail the complex phrasing of the questions that refer to one to another, especially exclusion of headache-days from one item to the next. The German version contains more active verb sentences and prefers the perfect to the imperfect tense. The MIDAS scales intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.884 to 0.994 and was 0.991 (95% CI: 0.982–0.995) for the MIDAS total score. Cronbach’s α for the MIDAS as a whole was 0.69 at test and 0.67 at retest.

Conclusions

The translation process was challenged by the comprehensibility of the questionnaire. The German version of the MIDAS is a highly reliable instrument for assessing headache related disability with moderate internal consistency. Provided validity testing of the German MIDAS is successful, it can be recommended for use in clinical practice as well as in research.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12955-018-0871-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Reliability and Validity of the Greek Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire

BACKGROUND

The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument for migraine-related disability. Such a tool is needed to quantify migraine-related disability in the Greek population.

OBJECTIVE

This validation study aims to assess the test-retest reliability, internal consistency, item discriminant and convergent validity of the Greek translation of the MIDAS.

METHODS

Adults diagnosed with migraine completed the MIDAS Questionnaire on two occasions 3 weeks apart to assess reliability, and completed the RAND-36 to assess validity.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 152) had a median MIDAS score of 24 and mostly severe disability (58% were grade IV). The test-retest reliability analysis (N = 59) revealed excellent reliability for the total score. Internal consistency was α = 0.71 for initial and α = 0.82 for retest completion. For item discriminant validity, the correlations between each question and the total score were significant, with high correlations for questions 2-5 (range 0.67 ≤ r ≤ 0.79; p < 0.01). For convergent validity, there was significant negative correlation between the total score and all RAND-36 subscales except for 'emotional wellbeing'. The negative correlation indicates that patients with a lower degree of disability according to their MIDAS score tended to have better wellbeing. Psychometric properties are comparable with those of other published validation studies of the MIDAS and the original. Findings on question 1 show that missing work/school days may be closely related with increased affect issues.

CONCLUSION

The Greek version of the MIDAS Questionnaire has good reliability and validity. This study allowed for cross-cultural comparability of research findings.

Is performance in goal oriented head movements altered in patients with tension type headache?

Background

Head repositioning tasks have been used in different experimental and clinical contexts to quantitatively measure motor control performance. Effects of pain on sensorimotor control have often been described in various musculoskeletal conditions and may provide relevant information with regard to potential mechanisms underlying tension-type headaches. The purpose of the current study was to compare the performance of patients with tension-type headache and healthy participants in a cervical aiming task using the Fitts’ task paradigm.

Methods

Patients with tension-type headache and healthy controls were compared in a cervical aiming task. Participants were asked to move their head as quickly, and precisely as possible to a target under various experimental conditions. Dependent variables included movement time, variable error, constant error and absolute error.

Results

As predicted by Fitts’ law, decreasing target size and increasing head rotation amplitudes yielded longer movement times in both groups. Participants with tension-type headache, when compared to healthy participants showed a significant increase in both constant and absolute errors for each of the four conditions.

Conclusion

Decreased motor performance was observed in participants with tension-type headache, likely due to altered motor control of the neck musculature. Future research is warranted to investigate the clinical aspect related to decrease in motor performance.

Reliability and validity of the migraine disability assessment scale among migraine and tension type headache in Iranian patients

Introduction. MIDAS is a valid and reliable short questionnaire for assessment of headache related disability. Linguistic validation of Persian MIDAS and assessment of psychometric properties between tension type headache (TTH) and migraine were the aims of this study. Methods. Patients with migraine or TTH were included. At the first visit, we administered a headache symptom questionnaire, MIDAS, and SF-36. Patients filled out MIDAS in second and third visit within three and eight weeks after base line visit. Internal consistency (Cronbach α) and test-retest reproducibility (Spearman correlation coefficient) were used to assess reliability. Convergent validity and MIDAS capability to differentiate between chronic and episodic headaches (migraine and TTH) were also assessed. Results. The 267 participants had episodic migraine (EM-64%), chronic migraine (CM-13.5%), episodic TTH (ETTH-13.5%), and chronic TTH (CTTH-9). Internal consistency reliability was 0.8 for the entire sample, 0.72 for TTH, and 0.82 for migraine. Test-retest reliability for all questions between visit 1 and visit 2 varied from 0.54 to 0.71. Convergent validity was assessed using SF-36 as an external referent. Patients with episodic headaches (EM and ETTH) had significantly lower MIDAS scores than chronic headaches (CM and CTTH). Conclusion. Persian MIDAS is a valid and reliable questionnaire for migraine and TTH that can differentiate between episodic headache and chronic headache.

Reliability and Validity of the Persian HIT-6 Questionnaire in Migraine and Tension-type Headache

OBJECTIVE

Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) measures the impact headaches in a 1-month period. We validated the Persian translation of HIT-6, compared the HIT-6 psychometric analysis between migraine and tension-type headache (TTH) patients, and evaluated the capability of HIT-6 to differentiate between TTH, chronic migraine, and episodic migraine.

METHODS

Qualified participants, including 274 patients diagnosed with migraine or TTH, were required to complete HIT-6, SF-36v2, and a symptoms questionnaire on their first visit. At 3 and 8 weeks from first visit, participants completed HIT-6. Internal consistency (Cronbach's α) and test-retest reproducibility (Pearson's correlation coefficient) were used to assess reliability. Convergent validity was also assessed.

RESULTS

Tension-type headache, episodic, and chronic migraines included 24.5%, 61.9%, and 13.6% of the participants, respectively. Internal consistency among all patients, TTH, and migraine in the first visit were 0.74, 0.77, and 0.73, respectively. Test-retest reliability for HIT-6 between visit 1 and 2 showed a moderate level of correlation (r = 0.50). Convergent validity and also item total correlation were acceptable. There was no significant difference in HIT-6 total score between TTH and migraine.

CONCLUSION

Persian HIT-6 is a valid and reliable questionnaire for the evaluation of headache. However, it cannot differentiate between chronic migraine, episodic migraine, and TTH in Iranian population.

Reliability and validity of Hindi translation of the migraine disability assessment and headache impact test-6 questionnaires

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Hindi translation of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) questionnaires.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted on the migraine patients. For test-retest reliability, the respondents filled the MIDAS and HIT-6 questionnaires twice, at an interval of three weeks. For validity, the same population of patients filled the headache diary for three months. After three months they filled the MIDAS and HIT-6 questionnaires again. The patients were subgrouped according to their occupation and level of education. The test-retest reliability and validity were calculated by the Pearson correlation coefficient. Internal consistency was calculated using the Cronbach alpha.

RESULTS

A total of 236 migraine patients were screened. Seventy-nine patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 69 patients completed the study. The HIT-6 questionnaire was applicable to all the subgroups of patients and had better comprehensibility than the MIDAS. Housewives missed out on the first two questions of the MIDAS and had lower mean MIDAS scores than HIT-6. The test-retest correlation coefficients for the total MIDAS and HIT-6 scores were 0.94 and 0.81, respectively. The correlation coefficients between the total score in the headache diary equivalent and the MIDAS and HIT-6 total score were 0.91 and 0.77, respectively. Cronbach alpha, a measure of internal consistency for the MIDAS questionnaire was > 0.90 at all the compilations. For the HIT-6 questionnaire, it ranged from 0.67 to 0.79.

CONCLUSION

The Hindi versions of MIDAS and HIT-6 questionnaires were reliable and valid, but could not be interchanged. HIT-6 had better comprehensibility.

Validation of the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6™) across episodic and chronic migraine

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess psychometric properties of the six-item Headache Impact Text (HIT-6™) across episodic and chronic migraine.

METHODS

Using a migraine screener and number of headache days per month (HDPM), participants from the National Survey of Headache Impact (NSHI) study and the HIT-6 validation study (HIT6-V) were selected for this study. Eligible participants were categorized into three groups: chronic migraine (CM: ≥ 15 HDPM); episodic migraine (EM: < 15 HDPM); non-migraine headaches. Reliability and validity of the HIT-6 were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 2,049 survey participants met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for this study. Participants were identified as 6.4% CM; 42.1% EM; 51.5% non-migraine, with respective mean HIT-6 scores: 62.5 ± 7.8; 60.2 ± 6.8; and 49.1 ± 8.7. High reliability was demonstrated with internal consistency (time1/time2) of 0.83/0.87 in NSHI, and 0.82/0.92 in HIT6-V. Intra-class correlation for test-retest reliability was very good at 0.77. HIT-6 scores correlated significantly (p < .0001) with total Migraine Disability Assessment Scale scores (r = 0.56), headache pain severity (r = 0.46), and HDPM (r = 0.29). Discriminant validity analysis showed significantly different HIT-6 scores (F = 488.02, p < .0001) across the groups.

CONCLUSION

Results from these analyses confirm that the HIT-6 is a reliable and valid tool for discriminating headache impact across episodic and chronic migraine.

Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) scores for migraine patients: Their relation to disability as measured from a headache diary

Background and Purpose

Complete information on migraine-related disabilities facilitate the making of appropriate treatment decisions. Although the accessibility and ease of use of the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) make it a very promising instrument, there are few data available for comparing HIT-6 scores with the actual amount of disability.

Methods

To determine whether the disability measured using the HIT-6 questionnaire realistically reflects the amount of disability as extracted from a headache diary, which would help when deciding a management plan, 130 patients with migraine without aura were instructed to complete a headache diary on the days on which headache occurred. Each diary booklet also contained questions on the resulting disability, and comprised five items originating from the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale. After submitting their diaries, the participants completed the HIT-6 for the same time period.

Results

Disability as recorded in diaries was present for a mean of 2.7 days per month, and its duration differed significantly with HIT-6 score: 0.9, 2.6, and 4.6 days per month for littleto-no impact, moderate impact, and severe impact, respectively. The summed disability score from diaries was also related to the HIT-6 score. Headache frequency was the only headache characteristic that contributed significantly to the HIT-6 score.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the HIT-6 could be useful for assessing headache-related disability in migraine patients, especially given that the questionnaire is both simple and ease of use.