Moderators and mediators of behavioral treatment for headache

Development and Evaluation of a Smartphone-Based Chatbot Coach to Facilitate a Balanced Lifestyle in Individuals With Headaches (BalanceUP App): Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Primary headaches, including migraine and tension-type headaches, are widespread and have a social, physical, mental, and economic impact. Among the key components of treatment are behavior interventions such as lifestyle modification. Scalable conversational agents (CAs) have the potential to deliver behavior interventions at a low threshold. To our knowledge, there is no evidence of behavioral interventions delivered by CAs for the treatment of headaches.

OBJECTIVE

This study has 2 aims. The first aim was to develop and test a smartphone-based coaching intervention (BalanceUP) for people experiencing frequent headaches, delivered by a CA and designed to improve mental well-being using various behavior change techniques. The second aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of BalanceUP by comparing the intervention and waitlist control groups and assess the engagement and acceptance of participants using BalanceUP.

METHODS

In an unblinded randomized controlled trial, adults with frequent headaches were recruited on the web and in collaboration with experts and allocated to either a CA intervention (BalanceUP) or a control condition. The effects of the treatment on changes in the primary outcome of the study, that is, mental well-being (as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale), and secondary outcomes (eg, psychosomatic symptoms, stress, headache-related self-efficacy, intention to change behavior, presenteeism and absenteeism, and pain coping) were analyzed using linear mixed models and Cohen d. Primary and secondary outcomes were self-assessed before and after the intervention, and acceptance was assessed after the intervention. Engagement was measured during the intervention using self-reports and usage data.

RESULTS

A total of 198 participants (mean age 38.7, SD 12.14 y; n=172, 86.9% women) participated in the study (intervention group: n=110; waitlist control group: n=88). After the intervention, the intention-to-treat analysis revealed evidence for improved well-being (treatment: β estimate=-3.28, 95% CI -5.07 to -1.48) with moderate between-group effects (Cohen d=-0.66, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.33) in favor of the intervention group. We also found evidence of reduced somatic symptoms, perceived stress, and absenteeism and presenteeism, as well as improved headache management self-efficacy, application of behavior change techniques, and pain coping skills, with effects ranging from medium to large (Cohen d=0.43-1.05). Overall, 64.8% (118/182) of the participants used coaching as intended by engaging throughout the coaching and completing the outro.

CONCLUSIONS

BalanceUP was well accepted, and the results suggest that coaching delivered by a CA can be effective in reducing the burden of people who experience headaches by improving their well-being.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00017422; https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=DRKS00017422.

Mechanisms of change in acceptance and commitment therapy for primary headaches

BACKGROUND

Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of behavioural headache interventions, it is not yet known which intervention processes account for treatment responses. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), an emerging behavioural intervention for headaches, proposes psychological flexibility (PF) processes as the mechanisms via which intervention change occurs. This is the first study examining these processes of change variables on headache-related disability and quality of life (treatment outcome).

METHODS

Data originated from a Randomized Clinical Trial evaluating the efficacy of ACT for primary headaches. Ninety-four individuals with primary headaches (M = 43 y; 84% females; M headache frequency/month = 9.30) were randomized to either an ACT-based or a Wait-list control group (N = 47 in each). Participants completed questionnaires related to their headache experiences and PF processes at pre- (T1), post-treatment (T2), and 3-month follow-up (T3).

RESULTS

Following a bootstrapped cross product of coefficients approach, results demonstrated mediating effects of headache acceptance, cognitive defusion, avoidance of headache, and mindfulness in the ACT group compared to control on parameters of headache-related disability and quality of life at post and 3-month follow-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate that changes in certain PF processes lower disability and improve quality of life in headache sufferers, supporting that ACT works via its proposed mechanisms of change. Interventions for headache management may be optimized if they target increases in headache acceptance, defusion from thoughts, and mindfulness.

SIGNIFICANCE

Psychological flexibility (PF) guides the ACT approach, an emerging behavioral headache intervention that focuses on optimizing head pain adjustment via flexible responses to pain. It targets at increasing daily functioning rather than preventing or controlling headache episodes. Pain acceptance, cognitive defusion, and mindfulness act as processes of functional change in ACT, lowering disability and increasing daily functioning and quality of life. These components can upgrade the established effectiveness of behavioral headache interventions with personalized, modularized therapeutic targets that can help headache sufferers re-establish optimal daily functioning even in fluctuating and persistent headache episodes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinical trials.gov registry (NCT02734992).

Headache-Specific Locus of Control and Migraine-Related Quality of Life: Understanding the Role of Anxiety

PURPOSE

This cross-sectional study examined the relationship between headache-specific locus of control (HSLC) and migraine-related quality of life, and anxiety as a mediator of this relationship.

METHOD

Two hundred and thirty-two people with migraine participated in the treatment of severe migraine trial. At baseline, participants completed self-report questionnaires of headache-specific locus of control (HSLC; subscales = internal, chance, and medical professionals), anxiety, and migraine-related quality of life. Correlations examined relationships between HSLC, anxiety, and migraine-related quality of life; ordinary least squares regression evaluated anxiety as a mediator of the relationship between HSLC and migraine-related quality of life.

RESULTS

Higher internal HSLC was related to higher overall migraine-related quality of life (ps < .05) and emotion function impairments (p = .012). Anxiety mediated the relationship between internal HSLC and all measures of migraine-specific quality of life (ps < .05). Higher external (medical professionals and chance) HSLC was related to higher migraine-related quality of life impairments (all ps < .001).

CONCLUSION

All HSLC beliefs are associated with higher migraine-related quality of life impairments. Anxiety mediates the relationship between internal HSLC and migraine-related quality of life.

TAKING PATIENT HETEROGENEITY AND PREFERENCES INTO ACCOUNT IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS

OBJECTIVES

The INTEGRATE-HTA project provided methodology to evaluate complex technologies. This study provides guidance on how to retrieve and critically appraise available evidence on moderators and predictors of treatment effects and on patient preferences for treatment outcomes as a source of complexity.

METHODS

Search filters for PubMed were developed by hand-searching a large volume of articles reporting on relevant aspects. Search terms were retrieved from selected papers and algorithmically combined to find the optimal combination of search terms. For the development of the appraisal checklists literature was searched in PubMed and Google Scholar together with citation chasing. For the CHecklist for the Appraisal of Moderators and Predictors (CHAMP) a Delphi procedure was used to value a set of eligible appraisal criteria retrieved from the literature.

RESULTS

Search filters were developed optimized for different accuracy measures. The final version of CHAMP consists of a seventeen questions covering the design, analysis, results and transferability of results of moderator and predictor analysis. The final checklist for appraisal of literature on patient preferences for treatment outcomes consist of six questions meant to help the user to identify relevant quality issues together with a guidance toward existing tools concerning the appraisal of specific preference elicitation methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating knowledge on subgroups for whom a specific treatment will produce more benefit holds the promise of better targeting and, ultimately, enhancing overall effectiveness and efficiency of healthcare technology. Finally, incorporating information on preferences for treatment outcomes will foster health technology assessment that addresses outcomes that are important to patients.

Prognostic factors for chronic headache: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors of prognosis and trial outcomes in prospective studies of people with chronic headache.

METHODS

This was a systematic review of published literature in peer-reviewed journals. We included (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for chronic headache that reported subgroup analyses and (2) prospective cohort studies, published in English, since 1980. Participants included adults with chronic headache (including chronic headache, chronic migraine, and chronic tension-type headache with or without medication overuse headache). We searched key databases using free text and MeSH terms. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodologic quality of studies and overall quality of evidence identified using appropriate published checklists.

RESULTS

We identified 16,556 titles, removed 663 duplicates, and reviewed 199 articles, of which 27 were included in the review-17 prospective cohorts and 10 RCTs with subgroup analyses reported. There was moderate-quality evidence indicating that depression, anxiety, poor sleep and stress, medication overuse, and poor self-efficacy for managing headaches are potential prognostic factors for poor prognosis and unfavorable outcomes from preventive treatment in chronic headache. There was inconclusive evidence about treatment expectations, age, age at onset, body mass index, employment, and several headache features.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified several potential predictors of poor prognosis and worse outcome postinterventions in people with chronic headache. The majority of these are modifiable. The findings also highlight the need for more longitudinal high-quality research of prognostic factors in chronic headache.

A 9-year follow-up of a self-management group intervention for persistent neck pain in primary health care: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In previous short-term and 2-year follow-ups, a pain and stress self-management group intervention (PASS) had better effect on pain-related disability, self-efficacy, catastrophizing, and perceived pain control than individually administered physiotherapy (IAPT) for patients with persistent tension-type neck pain. Studies that have evaluated long-term effects of self-management approaches toward persistent neck pain are sparse. The objective of this study was to compare pain-related disability, self-efficacy for activities of daily living (ADL), catastrophizing, pain, pain control, use of analgesics, and health care utilization in people with persistent tension-type neck pain 9 years after they received the PASS or IAPT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Of 156 people (PASS, n = 77; IAPT, n = 79) originally included in a randomized controlled trial, 129 people (PASS, n = 63; IAPT, n = 66) were eligible and were approached for the 9-year follow-up. They were sent a self-assessment questionnaire, comprising the Neck Disability Index, the Self-Efficacy Scale, the Coping Strategies Questionnaire, and questions regarding pain, analgesics, and health care utilization. Mixed linear models for repeated measures analysis or generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the differences between groups and within groups over time (baseline, previous follow-ups, and 9-year follow-up) and the interaction effect of "time by group".

RESULTS

Ninety-four participants (73%) responded (PASS, n = 48; IAPT, n = 46). At 9 years, PASS participants reported less pain-related disability, pain at worst, and analgesics usage, and a trend toward better self-efficacy compared to IAPT participants. There was a difference between groups in terms of change over time for disability, self-efficacy for ADL, catastrophizing, perceived pain control, and health care visits in favor of PASS. Analyses of simple main effects at 9 years showed that the PASS group had less disability (p = 0.006) and a trend toward better self-efficacy (p = 0.059) than the IAPT group.

CONCLUSION

The favorable effects on pain-related disability of PASS were sustained 9 years after the intervention.

Mediator Variables in Headache Research: Methodological Critique and Exemplar Using Self-Efficacy as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Headache Severity and Disability

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in headache medicine, there remains little research on process-related variables that mediate relations between headache and outcomes, as well as limited dissemination of optimal statistical methodology for conducting mediation analyses. The present paper thus aims to promote and demonstrate a contemporary approach to mediation analysis as applied to headache.

METHODS

An overview of a contemporary path-analytic approach to mediation analysis is presented, with an empirical exemplar for illustrative purposes. In the exemplar, headache management self-efficacy (HMSE) was proposed as a mediator between headache severity and disability. The sample included 907 young adults (M age = 19.03 [SD = 2.26]; 70.8% female) with primary headache. Direct and indirect effects of headache severity on headache disability through HMSE were assessed using the espoused methods.

RESULTS

Pain severity was positively associated with headache disability (β = 2.91, 95% confidence interval [CI; 2.62, 3.19]) and negatively associated with HMSE (β = -3.50, 95% CI [-4.24, -2.76]); HMSE was negatively associated with headache disability (β = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, -0.04]). A positive indirect effect of pain severity on disability through HMSE was identified (point estimate = 0.24, 95% CI [0.14, 0.34]); thus, self-efficacy mediated the association between pain severity and disability. The proposed mediation model accounted for 38% of total variance in disability (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for theory-driven and statistically rigorous mediation analyses within the headache literature. In one exemplar application, self-efficacy partially accounted for the disability resulting from headache. We advocate for increased attention to intervening variables in headache via dissemination of contemporary mediation analyses.

Self-management of persistent neck pain: two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of a multicomponent group intervention in primary health care

STUDY DESIGN

A 2-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term effects of (a) a multicomponent pain and stress self-management group intervention (PASS) and (b) individually administered physical therapy (IAPT) on patients with persistent tension-type neck pain in a primary health care (PHC) setting.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

In a previously reported short-term follow-up, PASS had better effects on pain control, pain-related self-efficacy, disability, and catastrophizing than IAPT. Long-term effects of self-management interventions for persistent neck pain, for example, maintenance of improvement and adherence to coping skills are sparsely investigated.

METHODS

Persons with persistent tension-type neck pain seeking physical therapy treatment at nine PHC centers in Sweden were randomly assigned to either PASS or IAPT. Before intervention, at 10 and 20 weeks and at 1 and 2 years after the intervention, the participants completed a self-assessment questionnaire comprising: the Self-Efficacy Scale, the Neck Disability Index, the Coping Strategies Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and questions regarding neck pain and analgesics. Analyses were performed using linear mixed models for repeated measures.

RESULTS

The study included 156 participants (PASS n = 77, IAPT n = 79). Between baseline, 10-week, 20-week, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up, significant time-by-group interaction effects were found in favor of PASS regarding the primary outcomes ability to control pain (P < 0.001) and self-efficacy for performing activities in spite of pain (P = 0.002), and the secondary outcome catastrophic thinking (P < 0.001) but not in neck pain-related disability.

CONCLUSION

The initial treatment effects of a self-management group intervention were largely maintained over a 2-year follow-up period and with a tendency to have superior long-term effects as compared to individually-administered physical therapy, in the treatment of persistent tension-type neck pain with regard to coping with pain, in terms of pain control, self-efficacy, and catastrophizing.

Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials: a consensus study

BACKGROUND

Current methodological guidelines provide advice about the assessment of sub-group analysis within RCTs, but do not specify explicit criteria for assessment. Our objective was to provide researchers with a set of criteria that will facilitate the grading of evidence for moderators, in systematic reviews.

METHOD

We developed a set of criteria from methodological manuscripts (n = 18) using snowballing technique, and electronic database searches. Criteria were reviewed by an international Delphi panel (n = 21), comprising authors who have published methodological papers in this area, and researchers who have been active in the study of sub-group analysis in RCTs. We used the Research ANd Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method to assess consensus on the quantitative data. Free responses were coded for consensus and disagreement. In a subsequent round additional criteria were extracted from the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook, and the process was repeated.

RESULTS

The recommendations are that meta-analysts report both confirmatory and exploratory findings for sub-groups analysis. Confirmatory findings must only come from studies in which a specific theory/evidence based a-priori statement is made. Exploratory findings may be used to inform future/subsequent trials. However, for inclusion in the meta-analysis of moderators, the following additional criteria should be applied to each study: Baseline factors should be measured prior to randomisation, measurement of baseline factors should be of adequate reliability and validity, and a specific test of the interaction between baseline factors and interventions must be presented.

CONCLUSIONS

There is consensus from a group of 21 international experts that methodological criteria to assess moderators within systematic reviews of RCTs is both timely and necessary. The consensus from the experts resulted in five criteria divided into two groups when synthesising evidence: confirmatory findings to support hypotheses about moderators and exploratory findings to inform future research. These recommendations are discussed in reference to previous recommendations for evaluating and reporting moderator studies.

Migraine education improves quality of life in a primary care setting

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Mercy Migraine Management Program (MMMP), an educational program for physicians and patients. The primary outcome was change in headache days from baseline at 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were changes in migraine-related disability and quality of life, worry about headaches, self-efficacy for managing migraines, emergency room (ER) visits for headache, and satisfaction with headache care.

BACKGROUND

Despite progress in the understanding of the pathophysiology of migraine and development of effective therapeutic agents, many practitioners and patients continue to lack the knowledge and skills to effectively manage migraine. Educational efforts have been helpful in improving the quality of care and quality of life for migraine sufferers. However, little work has been performed to evaluate these changes over a longer period of time. Also, there is a paucity of published research evaluating the influence of education about migraine management on cognitive and emotional factors (for example, self-efficacy for managing headaches, worry about headaches).

METHODS

In this open-label, prospective study, 284 individuals with migraine (92% female, mean age = 41.6) participated in the MMMP, an educational and skills-based program. Of the 284 who participated in the program, 228 (80%) provided data about their headache frequency, headache-related disability (as measured by the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), migraine-specific quality of life (MSQ), worry about headaches, self-efficacy for managing headaches, ER visits for headaches, and satisfaction with care at 4 time points over 12 months (baseline, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months).

RESULTS

Overall, 46% (106) of subjects reported a 50% or greater reduction in headache frequency. Over 12 months, patients reported fewer headaches and improvement on the HIT-6 and MSQ (all P < .001). The improvement in headache impact and quality of life was greater among those who had more worry about their headaches at baseline. There were also significant improvements in "worry about headaches,""self-efficacy for managing headaches," and "satisfaction with headache care."

CONCLUSION

The findings demonstrate that patients participating in the MMMP reported improvements in their headache frequency as well as the cognitive and emotional aspects of headache management. This program was especially helpful among those with high amounts of worry about their headaches at the beginning of the program. The findings from this study are impetus for further research that will more clearly evaluate the effects of education and skill development on headache characteristics and the emotional and cognitive factors that influence headache.

Moderation and mediation in the psychological and drug treatment of chronic tension-type headache: the role of disorder severity and psychiatric comorbidity

We evaluated two putative moderators of treatment outcome as well as the role of Headache Management Self-Efficacy (HMSE) in mediating treatment outcomes in the drug and non-drug treatment of chronic tension-type headache (CTTH). Subjects were 169 participants (M=38 yrs.; 77% female; M headache days/mo.=22) who received one of four treatments in the treatment of CTTH trial (JAMA, 2001; 285: 2208-15): tricyclic antidepressant medication, placebo, (cognitive-behavioral) stress-management therapy plus placebo, and stress-management therapy plus antidepressant medication. Severity of CTTH disorder and the presence of a psychiatric (mood or anxiety) disorder were found to moderate outcomes obtained with the three active treatments and with placebo, as well as to moderate the role of HMSE in mediating improvements. Both moderator effects appeared to reflect the differing influence of the moderator variable on each of the three active treatments, as well as the fact that the moderator variables exerted the opposite effect on placebo than on the active treatments. HMSE mediated treatment outcomes in the two stress-management conditions, but the pattern of HMSE mediation was complex, varying with the treatment condition, the outcome measure, and the moderator variable. Irrespective of the severity of the CTTH disorder HMSE fully mediated observed improvements in headache activity in the two stress-management conditions. However, for patients with a mood or anxiety disorder HMSE only partially mediated improvements in headache disability, suggesting an additional therapeutic mechanism is required to explain observed improvements in headache disability in the two stress-management conditions.

Mexican-heritage preadolescents' ethnic identification and perceptions of substance use

This paper examines the relationship between ethnic identification and substance use for 1,346 Mexican-heritage preadolescents in a National Institute on Drug Abuse-funded study in Phoenix, Arizona (2004-2005). Participants ranged from 9 to 13 years old, 49% reported their gender as male, 33% self-identified as Mexican, and 67% as Mexican American, and 91% of the students reported taking part in the free or reduced-price lunch program. Questionnaire responses were analyzed by fitting regression models. Analyses showed that ethnic identification may play a protective role, with stronger ethnic identification related to more antidrug norms, less positive drug expectations, stronger refusal efficacy, and less intent to use substances. While gender did not significantly moderate the relationships, ethnic identification appears more broadly related to antisubstance-use norms for Mexican-born than U.S.-born participants. This study presents important implications for substance-use prevention research among Mexican heritage preadolescents. Finally, limitations of the study are noted.

Effects of program exposure and engagement with tailored prevention communication on sun protection by young adolescents

Few family-based interventions to increase sun safe behavior among adolescents have been evaluated. The present study tested an intervention that included tailored and nontailored print communications delivered by mail to adolescents (age 11 to 15) and their parents who were also participating in an evaluation of an in-school intervention. The use of sunscreen, protective clothing, and avoidance of the sun were promoted, and family communication and environmental change strategies were fostered. Adolescents and their parents were pretested in May of 2002 and posttested from August to October. Adolescents (N = 599) were stratified on experimental condition in the in-school study (in-school intervention vs control) and randomly were assigned from within strata to receive (N = 288) or not receive (N = 311) the summer intervention materials. No statistically significant effects were found for adolescents between the randomized experimental conditions. Parents' had increased knowledge (F = 5.52, p < .05) and propensity to have their child wear sunglasses (F = 4.07, p < .05). Greater program exposure/engagement led to enhanced sun protection behavior (e.g., fewer sunburns) and psychosocial factors among adolescents and parents. Greater exposure/engagement led to improvements in family interaction and home environment (e.g., shade audit completed). Future research is needed on exposure/engagement with family-based health messaging and on family-based sun safety programs for adolescents.

Screening and behavioral management: obesity and weight management

Individuals with migraine headaches who are obese or overweight may be at elevated risk for experiencing more frequent migraines and for developing chronic migraine. This makes it imperative that clinicians consider including weight management as part of a migraine treatment plan in situations where the patient is overweight or obese. Weight loss and weight maintenance therapy should employ a combination of behavioral strategies, in particular nutritional education, dietary intervention, and exercise counseling, as a first line intervention. Weight loss medications are considered a secondary treatment; however, when weight loss medications are used, it is vital to monitor the influence of the medication on headache. Similarly, a clinician considering migraine prophylaxis needs to consider whether the pharmacologic agent being considered influences weight gain or loss.

A randomized clinical trial of targeted cognitive behavioral treatment to reduce catastrophizing in chronic headache sufferers

This randomized clinical trial (RCT) examined the efficacy of a cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) specifically targeted toward reducing pain catastrophizing for persons with chronic headache. Immediate treatment groups were compared with wait-list control groups. Differential treatment gains based on the order of presentation of 2 components of CBT (cognitive restructuring and cognitive/behavioral coping) and the role of catastrophizing in treatment outcome were examined. Thirty-four participants enrolled in a 10-week group treatment and 11 completed a wait-list self-monitoring period. Participants reported significant reductions in catastrophizing and anxiety and increased self-efficacy compared with wait-list control subjects, and these were maintained at follow-up. Although we did not find overall differences in the reduction of headache frequency or intensity compared with wait-list control subjects, calculation of clinical significance on headache indicators suggest that approximately 50% of treated participants showed meaningful changes in headache indices as well. Order of treatment modules was not related to gains during treatment or at follow-up; however, almost all changes occurred during the second half of treatment, suggesting that duration of treatment participation is important.

PERSPECTIVE

Cognitive-behavioral treatment targeting reduction of catastrophizing for chronic headache pain reduced negative cognitive and affective variables associated with recurrent headache, increased headache management self-efficacy, and in half of the participants, produced clinically meaningful reductions in headache indicators. Length of treatment is an important factor to consider when providing CBT for chronic pain.

Psychological risk factors in headache

Headache is a chronic disease that occurs with varying frequency and results in varying levels of disability. To date, the majority of research and clinical focus has been on the role of biological factors in headache and headache-related disability. However, reliance on a purely biomedical model of headache does not account for all aspects of headache and associated disability. Using a biopsychosocial framework, the current manuscript expands the view of what factors influence headache by considering the role psychological (i.e., cognitive and affective) factors have in the development, course, and consequences of headache. The manuscript initially reviews evidence showing that neural circuits responsible for cognitive-affective phenomena are highly interconnected with the circuitry responsible for headache pain. The manuscript then reviews the influence cognitions (locus of control and self-efficacy) and negative affect (depression, anxiety, and anger) have on the development of headache attacks, perception of headache pain, adherence to prescribed treatment, headache treatment outcome, and headache-related disability. The manuscript concludes with a discussion of the clinical implications of considering psychological factors when treating headache.

Headache and psychiatric comorbidity: historical context, clinical implications, and research relevance

The comorbidity of headache and psychiatric disorders is a well-recognized clinical phenomenon warranting further systematic research. Affective disorders occur with at least three-fold greater frequency among migraineurs than among the general population, and the prevalence increases in clinical populations, especially with chronic daily headache. When present, psychiatric comorbidity complicates headache management and portends a poorer prognosis for headache treatment. However, the relationship between headache and psychopathology has historically been misunderstood, and measures of psychopathology have not always met the standard of formal Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV) criteria. In some cases, headache has been inappropriately attributed to psychological or psychiatric features, based on anecdotal observations. The challenge for future studies is to employ research methods and designs that accurately identify and classify the subset of headache patients with psychiatric disorders, evaluate their impact on headache symptoms and treatment, and identify optimal behavioral and pharmacologic treatment strategies. This article offers methodological considerations and recommendations for future research including: (i) ascribing dual-International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd ed. (ICHD-2) headache and DSM-IV psychiatric diagnoses according to reliable and valid diagnostic criteria, (ii) differentiating subclinical levels of depression and anxiety from major psychiatric disorders, (iii) encouraging validation studies of the recently published ICHD-2 diagnoses for "headache attributed to psychiatric disorder," (iv) expanding epidemiological research to address the range of DSM-IV Axis I and II psychiatric diagnoses among various headache populations, (v) identifying relevant psychiatric and behavioral mediator/moderator variables, and (vi) developing empirically based screening and treatment algorithms.

Allocation of patients to conditions in headache clinical trials: randomization, stratification, and treatment matching

Assuming control over the allocation of patients to treatment conditions is a fundamental element of any comparative clinical trial. There are three critical considerations investigators must balance in choosing an allocation scheme: reducing bias in patient allocation, producing balanced patient groups across treatment arms, and reducing the likelihood of errors attributable to chance variation. The authors review the principles of three key approaches to the allocation of patients to conditions within clinical trials, and their respective advantages with regard to these critical considerations. These allocation methods include randomization, stratification, and patient-treatment matching. Randomization is fundamental to most clinical trials. Stratification is an advanced step in a systematic program of research investigating the efficacy and effectiveness of an intervention. If the trial has less than 100 per arm and there is a known prognostic factor, stratification is the best choice to ensure equal allocation across groups. Treatment matching (tailoring) attempts to match the most appropriate treatment to a specific patient based on a priori hypotheses. Two techniques used for exploring treatment matching are: patient typologies (patient profiling), and aptitude-treatment interactions. Additional details pertaining to the rationale for selecting among these various approaches to patient allocation is provided, and their methodology is summarized with specific consideration for their application within clinical trials of headache treatment.

Behavioral headache research: methodologic considerations and research design alternatives

Behavioral headache treatments have garnered solid empirical support in recent years, but there is substantial opportunity to strengthen the next generation of studies with improved methods and consistency across studies. Recently, Guidelines for Trials of Behavioral Treatments for Recurrent Headache were published to facilitate the production of high-quality research. The present article compliments the guidelines with a discussion of methodologic and research design considerations. Since there is no research design that is applicable in every situation, selecting an appropriate research design is fundamental to producing meaningful results. Investigators in behavioral headache and other areas of research consider the developmental phase of the research, the principle objectives of the project, and the sources of error or alternative interpretations in selecting a design. Phases of clinical trials typically include pilot studies, efficacy studies, and effectiveness studies. These trials may be categorized as primarily pragmatic or explanatory. The most appropriate research designs for these different phases and different objectives vary on such characteristics as sample size and assignment to condition, types of control conditions, periods or frequency of measurement, and the dimensions along which comparisons are made. A research design also must fit within constraints on available resources. There are a large number of potential research designs that can be used and considering these characteristics allows selection of appropriate research designs.

Future Directions in Behavioral Headache Research: Applications for an Evolving Health Care Environment

Three decades of research has produced effective behavioral treatments for migraine and tension-type headache, yet the full fruition of this research has not been realized. Further development and dissemination of behavioral treatments is needed to impact the large numbers of those with headache who potentially could benefit from these interventions. At the same time, an evolving health care environment challenges researchers and providers to employ greater efficiency and innovation in managing all chronic disorders. Hopefully, the recently published clinical trials guidelines for behavioral headache research will serve as a catalyst for production of quality empiricism that, in turn, will generate enhanced behavioral strategies and will optimize health care resource utilization. This article describes 10 areas of critical needs and research priorities for behavioral headache research, including: replication and extension of seminal studies using improved methodology; analysis of barriers to implementation of behavioral treatments; development of referral and treatment algorithms; behavioral compliance facilitation with medical interventions; development of a headache self-management model; integration of behavioral intervention within traditional medical practice; identification and management of comorbid psychopathology among headache patients; prevention of disease progression; analysis of behavioral therapeutic mechanisms, and development of innovative treatment formats and applications of information technologies.

Guidelines for Trials of Behavioral Treatments for Recurrent Headache, First Edition: American Headache Society Behavioral Clinical Trials Workgroup

Guidelines for design of clinical trials evaluating behavioral headache treatments were developed to facilitate production of quality research evaluating behavioral therapies for management of primary headache disorders. These guidelines were produced by a Workgroup of headache researchers under auspices of the American Headache Society. The guidelines are complementary to and modeled after guidelines for pharmacological trials published by the International Headache Society, but they address methodologic considerations unique to behavioral and other nonpharmacological treatments. Explicit guidelines for evaluating behavioral headache therapies are needed as the optimal methodology for behavioral (and other nonpharmacologic) trials necessarily differs from the preferred methodology for drug trials. In addition, trials comparing and integrating drug and behavioral therapies present methodological challenges not addressed by guidelines for pharmacologic research. These guidelines address patient selection, trial design for behavioral treatments and for comparisons across multiple treatment modalities (eg, behavioral vs pharmacologic), evaluation of results, and research ethics. Although developed specifically for behavioral therapies, the guidelines may apply to the design of clinical trials evaluating many forms of nonpharmacologic therapies for headache.

Behavioral Headache Treatment: History, Review of the Empirical Literature, and Methodological Critique

Theoretical developments and burgeoning research on stress and illness in the mid-20th century yielded the foundations necessary to conceptualize headache as a psychophysiological disorder and eventually to develop and apply contemporary behavioral headache treatments. Over the past three decades, these behavioral headache treatments (relaxation training, biofeedback, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and stress-management training) have amassed a sizeable evidence base. Meta-analytic reviews of the literature consistently have shown behavioral interventions to yield 35% to 55% improvements in migraine and tension-type headache and that these outcomes are significantly superior to control conditions. The strength of the evidence has lead many professional practice organizations to recommend use of behavioral headache treatments alongside pharmacologic treatments for primary headache. The present overview was prepared as a companion article to and intended to provide a background for the Guidelines for Trials of Behavioral Treatments for Recurrent Headache also published within this journal supplement. This article begins with a synopsis of key historical developments leading to our current conceptualization of migraine and tension-type headache as psychophysiological disorders amenable to behavioral intervention. The evolution of the behavioral headache literature is discussed, exemplified by publication trends in the journal Headache. Leading empirically-based behavioral headache interventions are described, and meta-analytic reviews examining the migraine and tension-type headache literatures are summarized, compared, and contrasted. A critique of the methodological quality of the clinical trials literature is presented, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses in relation to recruitment and selection of patients, sample size and statistical power, the use of a credible control, and the reproducibility of the study interventions in clinical practice.