Direct costs of preventive headache treatments: comparison of behavioral and pharmacologic approaches

Underuse of Behavioral Treatments for Headache: a Narrative Review Examining Societal and Cultural Factors

Migraine affects over 40 million Americans and is the world's second most disabling condition. As the majority of medical care for migraine occurs in primary care settings, not in neurology nor headache subspecialty practices, healthcare system interventions should focus on primary care. Though there is grade A evidence for behavioral treatment (e.g., biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and relaxation techniques) for migraine, these treatments are underutilized. Behavioral treatments may be a valuable alternative to opioids, which remain widely used for migraine, despite the US opioid epidemic and guidelines that recommend against them. Identifying and removing barriers to the use of headache behavioral therapy could help reduce the disability as well as the personal and social costs of migraine. These techniques will have their greatest impact if offered in primary care settings to the lower socioeconomic status groups at greatest risk for migraine. We review the societal and cultural challenges that impose barriers to optimal use of non-pharmacological treatment services. These barriers include insufficient knowledge of migraine/headache behavioral treatments and insufficient availability of clinicians trained in non-pharmacological treatment delivery; limited access in underserved communities; financial burden; and stigma associated with both headache and mental health diagnoses and treatment. For each barrier, we discuss potential approaches to minimizing its effect and thus enhancing non-pharmacological treatment utilization.Case ExampleA 25-year-old graduate student with a prior history of headaches in college is attending school in the evenings while working a full-time job. Now, his headaches have significant nausea and photophobia. They are twice weekly and are disabling enough that he is unable to complete homework assignments. He does not understand why the headaches occur on Saturdays when he pushes through all week to get through his examinations that take place on Friday evenings. He tried two different migraine preventive medications, but neither led to the 50% reduction in headache days his doctor had hoped for. His doctor had suggested cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) before initiating the medications, but he had been too busy to attend the appointments, and the challenges in finding an in-network provider proved difficult. Now with the worsening headaches, he opted for the CBT and by the fifth week had already noted improvements in his headache frequency and intensity.

Introduction of a smartphone based behavioral intervention for migraine in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a smartphone application (app) with an electronic headache diary and a progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) intervention is feasible and acceptable to people presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with migraine.

METHODS

This single arm prospective study assessed feasibility by actual use of the app and acceptability by satisfaction with the app. We report preliminary data on change in migraine disability and headache days.

RESULTS

The 51 participants completed PMR sessions on a mean of 13 ± 19 (0,82) days for the 90-day study period, lasting a median of 11 min (IQR 6.5, 17) each. Median number of days of diary use was 34 (IQR 10, 77). Diaries were completed at least twice a week in half of study weeks (337/663). Participants were likely (≥4/5 on a 5-point Likert scale) to recommend both the app (85%) and PMR (91%). MIDAS scores significantly decreased by a mean of 38 points/participant (p < 0.0001). More frequent PMR use was associated with a higher odds of headache free days (p = 0.0148).

CONCLUSION

Smartphone-based PMR introduced to patients who present to the ED for migraine is feasible and acceptable. More frequent users have more headache free days. Future work should focus on intervention engagement.

Heartrate variability biofeedback for migraine using a smartphone application and sensor: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Although hand temperature and electromyograph biofeedback have evidence for migraine prevention, to date, no study has evaluated heartrate variability (HRV) biofeedback for migraine.

METHODS

2-arm randomized trial comparing an 8-week app-based HRV biofeedback (HeartMath) to waitlist control. Feasibility/acceptability outcomes included number and duration of sessions, satisfaction, barriers and adverse events. Primary clinical outcome was Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQv2).

RESULTS

There were 52 participants (26/arm). On average, participants randomized to the Hearthmath group completed 29 sessions (SD = 29, range: 2-86) with an average length of 6:43 min over 36 days (SD = 27, range: 0, 88) before discontinuing. 9/29 reported technology barriers. 43% said that they were likely to recommend Heartmath to others. Average MSQv2 decreases were not significant between the Heartmath and waitlist control (estimate = 0.3, 95% CI = -3.1 - 3.6). High users of Heartmath reported a reduction in MSQv2 at day 30 (-12.3 points, p = 0.010) while low users did not (p = 0.765).

DISCUSSION

App-based HRV biofeedback was feasible and acceptable on a time-limited basis for people with migraine. Changes in the primary clinical outcome did not differ between biofeedback and control; however, high users of the app reported more benefit than low users.

Smartphone-Delivered Progressive Muscle Relaxation for the Treatment of Migraine in Primary Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Scalable, accessible forms of behavioral therapy for migraine prevention are needed. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) delivered by a smartphone application (app) in the Primary Care setting.

METHODS

This pilot study was a non-blinded, randomized, parallel-arm controlled trial of adults with migraine and 4+ headache days/month. Eligible participants spoke English and owned a smartphone. All participants were given the RELAXaHEAD app which includes an electronic headache diary. Participants were randomized to receive 1 of the 2 versions of the app-one with PMR and the other without PMR. The primary outcomes were measures of feasibility (adherence to the intervention and diary entries during the 90-day interval) and acceptability (satisfaction levels). We conducted exploratory analyses to determine whether there was a change in Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) scores or a change in headache days.

RESULTS

Of 139 participants (77 PMR, 62 control), 116 (83%) were female, mean age was 41.7 ± 12.8 years. Most patients 108/139 (78%) had moderate-severe disability. Using a 1-5 Likert scale, participants found the app easy to use (mean 4.2 ± 0.7) and stated that they would be happy to engage in the PMR intervention again (mean 4.3 ± 0.6). For the first 6 weeks, participants practiced PMR 2-4 days/week. Mean per session duration was 11.1 ± 8.3 minutes. Relative to the diary-only group, the PMR group showed a greater non-significant decline in mean MIDAS scores (-8.7 vs -22.7, P = .100) corresponding to a small-moderate mean effect size (Cohen's d = 0.38).

CONCLUSION

Smartphone-delivered PMR may be an acceptable, accessible form of therapy for migraine. Mean effects show a small-moderate mean effect size in disability scores.

Behavioral Therapy Preferences in People With Migraine

BACKGROUND

There are safe and well-tolerated level A evidence-based behavioral therapies for the prevention of migraine. They are biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy, and relaxation. However, the behavioral therapies for the prevention of migraine are underutilized.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to examine whether people with migraine with 4 or more headache days a month had preferences regarding the type of delivery of the behavioral therapy (in-person, smartphone based, telephone) and whether they would be willing to pay for in-person behavioral therapy. We also sought to determine the predictors of likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional study design, we developed an online survey using TurkPrime, an online survey platform, to assess how likely TurkPrime participants who screened positive for migraine using the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention screen were to pursue different delivery methods of the behavioral therapy. We report descriptive statistics and quantitative analyses.

RESULTS

There were 401 participants. Median age was 34 [IQR: 29, 41] years. More than two thirds of participants (70.3%, 282/401) were women. Median number of headache days/ month was 5 [IQR: 2.83, 8.5]. Some (12.5%, 50/401) used evidence-based behavioral therapy for migraine. The participants reported that they were "somewhat likely" to pursue in-person or smartphone behavioral therapy and behavioral therapy covered by insurance but were neutral about pursuing the telephone-based behavioral therapy. Participants were "not very likely" to pay out of pocket for the behavioral therapy. Migraine-related disability as measured by the MIDAS grading score was associated with likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy in-person (P = .004), via telephone (P = .015), and via smart phone (P < .001), and covered by insurance (P = .001). However, migraine-related disability was not associated with likelihood to pursue out of pocket (P = .769) behavioral therapy. Pain intensity was predictive of likelihood of pursuing the behavioral therapy for migraine when covered by insurance. Other factors including education, employment, and headache days were not predictors.

CONCLUSION

People with migraine prefer in-person and smartphone-based behavioral therapy to telephone-based behavioral therapy. Migraine-related disability is associated with likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy (independent of type of delivery of the behavioral therapy-in-person, telephone based or smartphone based). However, participants were not very likely to pay for the behavioral therapy.

Factors Related to Migraine Patients' Decisions to Initiate Behavioral Migraine Treatment Following a Headache Specialist's Recommendation: A Prospective Observational Study

Objective

To evaluate the frequency with which migraine patients initiated behavioral migraine treatment following a headache specialist recommendation and the predictors for initiating behavioral migraine treatment.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study of consecutive patients diagnosed with migraine to examine whether the patients initiated behavioral migraine treatment following a provider recommendation. The primary outcome was scheduling the initial visit for behavioral migraine treatment. Patients who initiated behavioral migraine treatment were compared with those who did not (demographics, migraine characteristics, and locus of control) with analysis of variance and chi-square tests.

Results

Of the 234 eligible patients, 69 (29.5%) were referred for behavioral treatment. Fifty-three (76.8%) patients referred for behavioral treatment were reached by phone. The mean duration from time of referral to follow-up was 76  (median 76, SD = 45) days. Thirty (56.6%) patients initiated behavioral migraine treatment. There was no difference in initiation of behavioral migraine treatment with regard to sex, age, age of diagnosis, years suffered with headaches, health care utilization visits, Migraine Disability Assessment Screen, and locus of control (P > 0.05). Patients who had previously seen a psychologist for migraine were more likely to initiate behavioral migraine treatment than patients who had not. Time constraints were the most common barrier cited for not initiating behavioral migraine treatment.

Conclusions

Less than one-third of eligible patients were referred for behavioral treatment, and only about half initiated behavioral migraine treatment. Future research should further assess patients' decisions regarding behavioral treatment initiation and methods for behavioral treatment delivery to overcome barriers to initiating behavioral migraine treatment.

Smartphone-based migraine behavioral therapy: a single-arm study with assessment of mental health predictors

Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) is an under-utilized Level A evidence-based treatment for migraine prevention. We studied the feasibility and acceptability of smartphone application (app)-based PMR for migraine in a neurology setting, explored whether app-based PMR might reduce headache (HA) days, and examined potential predictors of app and/or PMR use. In this single-arm pilot study, adults with ICHD3 migraine, 4+ HA days/month, a smartphone, and no prior behavioral migraine therapy in the past year were asked to complete a daily HA diary and do PMR for 20 min/day for 90 days. Outcomes were: adherence to PMR (no. and duration of audio plays) and frequency of diary use. Predictors in the models were baseline demographics, HA-specific variables, baseline PROMIS (patient-reported outcomes measurement information system) depression and anxiety scores, presence of overlapping pain conditions studied and app satisfaction scores at time of enrollment. Fifty-one patients enrolled (94% female). Mean age was 39 ± 13 years. The majority (63%) had severe migraine disability at baseline (MIDAS). PMR was played 22 ± 21 days on average. Mean/session duration was 11 ± 7 min. About half (47%) of uses were 1+ time/week and 35% of uses were 2+ times/week. There was a decline in use/week. On average, high users (PMR 2+ days/week in the first month) had 4 fewer days of reported HAs in month 2 vs. month 1, whereas low PMR users (PMR < 2 days/week in the first month) had only 2 fewer HA days in month 2. PROMIS depression score was negatively associated with the log odds of using the diary at least once (vs. no activity) in a week (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = [0.55, 0.85]) and of doing the PMR at least once in a week (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = [0.68, 0.91]). PROMIS anxiety was positively associated with using the diary at least once every week (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = [1.09, 1.73]) and with doing the PMR at least once every week (OR = 1.14 [95% CI = [1.02, 1.31]). In conclusion, about half of participants used smartphone-based PMR intervention based upon a brief, initial introduction to the app. App use was associated with reduction in HA days. Higher depression scores were negatively associated with diary and PMR use, whereas higher anxiety scores were positively associated.

Impact of early headache neuroimaging on time to malignant brain tumor diagnosis: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Neuroimaging for headaches is both common and costly. While the costs are well quantified, little is known about the benefit in terms of diagnosing pathology. Our objective was to determine the role of early neuroimaging in the identification of malignant brain tumors in individuals presenting to healthcare providers with headaches.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data (2001-2014) from a US insurer. Individuals were included if they had an outpatient visit for headaches and excluded for prior headache visits, other neurologic conditions, neuroimaging within the previous year, and cancer. The exposure was early neuroimaging, defined as neuroimaging within 30 days of the first headache visit. A propensity score-matched group that did not undergo early neuroimaging was then created. The primary outcome was frequency of malignant brain tumor diagnoses and median time to diagnosis within the first year after the incident headache visit. The secondary outcome was frequency of incidental findings.

RESULTS

22.2% of 180,623 individuals had early neuroimaging. In the following year, malignant brain tumors were found in 0.28% (0.23-0.34%) of the early neuroimaging group and 0.04% (0.02-0.06%) of the referent group (P<0.001). Median time to diagnosis in the early neuroimaging group was 8 (3-19) days versus 72 (39-189) days for the referent group (P<0.001). Likely incidental findings were discovered in 3.17% (3.00-3.34%) of the early neuroimaging group and 0.66% (0.58-0.74%) of the referent group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Malignant brain tumors in individuals presenting with an incident headache diagnosis are rare and early neuroimaging leads to a small reduction in the time to diagnosis.

Adherence to Behavioral Therapy for Migraine: Knowledge to Date, Mechanisms for Assessing Adherence, and Methods for Improving Adherence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In other disease states, adherence to behavioral therapies has gained attention, with a greater amount of studies discussing, defining, and optimizing adherence. For example, a meta-analysis formally discussed adherence in 25 studies of CBT for 11 different disorders, with only 6 of the 25 omitting addressing or defining adherence. Many studies have discussed the use of text messages, graph-based adherence rates, and email/telephone reminders to improve adherence. This paper examined the available literature regarding adherence to behavioral therapy for migraine as well as adherence to similar therapies in other disease states. The goal of this research is to apply lessons learned from adherence to behavioral therapy for other diseases in better understanding how we can improve adherence to behavioral therapy for migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Treatment for migraine typically includes both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic therapies, including progressive muscle relaxation (PMR), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and biofeedback. Behavioral therapies have been shown to significantly reduce headache frequency and intensity, but high attrition rates and suboptimal adherence can undermine their efficacy. Traditionally, adherence to behavioral therapy has been defined by self-report, including paper headache diaries and assignments. In person attendance has also been employed as a method of defining and monitoring adherence. With the advent of personal electronics, measurements of adherence have shifted to include electronic-based methods such as computer-based programs and mobile-based therapies. Furthermore, some studies have taken advantage of electronic methods such as email reminders, push notifications, and other mobile-based reminders to optimize adherence. The JITA-I, a novel method of engaging individual patient adherence, has also been suggested as a possible method to improve adherence by tailoring engagement with a mobile health app-based on patient input. These novel methods may be utilized in behavioral therapy for migraine for further optimizing adherence. Few intervention studies to date have addressed the optimal ways to impact adherence to migraine behavioral therapy. Further research is required regarding adherence with behavioral therapies, specifically via mobile health interventions to better understand how to define and improve adherence via this novel forum. Once we are able to understand optimal methods of tracking adherence, we will be better equipped to understand the role of adherence in shaping outcomes for behavioral therapy in migraine.

Behavioral Therapies and Mind-Body Interventions for Posttraumatic Headache and Post-Concussive Symptoms: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There are no clear guidelines on how to treat posttraumatic headache (PTH) or post-concussive symptoms (PCS). However, behavioral interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, and relaxation are Level-A evidence-based treatments for headache prevention. To understand how to develop and study further mind-body interventions (MBIs) and behavioral therapies for PTH and PCS, we developed the following question using the PICO framework: Are behavioral therapies and MBIs effective for treating PTH and PCS?

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of 3 databases (Medline, PsycINFO, and EMBASE) for behavioral interventions and MBIs with the subject headings and keywords for PTH, concussion, and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Inclusion criteria were (1) randomized controlled trials, (2) the majority of the intervention had to be behavioral or mind-body therapy focused, (3) the majority of the participants (>50%) had to have had a mild TBI (not a moderate or severe TBI), (4) published in a peer-reviewed publication, and (5) meeting pre-specified primary and/or secondary outcomes. Primary outcome(s): whether there was a significant change in concussion symptom severity (yes/no) based on the symptom severity checklist/scale used, whether there was a 50% reduction in headache days and/or disability; secondary outcome(s): sleep variables, cognitive complaints, depression, and anxiety. The search identified 917 individual studies. Two independent reviewers screened citations and full-text articles independently. Nineteen articles were pulled for full article review. Seven articles met the final inclusion criteria. The systematic review was registered in Prospero (CRD42017070072).

RESULTS

Overall, there was vast heterogeneity across the studies, making it difficult to fully assess efficacy. The heterogeneity ranged from differences in patient populations, the timing of when the interventions were initiated, the types of intervention implemented, and the measures used to assess outcomes. Seven studies were identified as meeting final inclusion criteria, resulting in a total of 1108 adult participants ranging from 18 to 80. Sixty-nine percent were male. Of the 7 studies, 3 were focused on military staff (retired and active). Time post-injury for inclusion into the studies varied from 48 hours post-injury to more than 2 years post-injury. One of the 7 studies did not include time post-TBI in the inclusion criteria. Two studies recruited patients who had visited their emergency departments, 4 of the studies recruited subjects through outpatient referrals, and 1 study recruited patients who had been in a prior traffic accident with resulting chronic PTH directly from a headache center. Group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) sessions and telephonic counseling or communication were common intervention methods used in the studies, with group CBT being used in 2 of the studies and telephonic counseling being used in 3. Other intervention methods used included individual CBT, cognitive training, psychoeducation, and computer-based and/or therapist-directed cognitive rehabilitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the interventions offered vastly different methods of delivery of intervention and doses of intervention. Many of the negative studies were done after an extended duration post-injury (>1-year posttraumatic brain injury [TBI]). In addition, the participants were lumped together regardless of their pre-concussion comorbidities, their mechanism of injury, their symptoms, and the duration from injury to the start of the intervention. The mass heterogeneity found between the studies led to inconclusive findings. Thus, there are various considerations for the design of the intervention for future behavioral/MBI studies for PTH and concussion that must be addressed before the leading question of this review may be effectively answered.

A Critical Exploration of Migraine as a Health Disparity: the Imperative of an Equity-Oriented, Intersectional Approach

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite recognition of rising prevalence and significant burden, migraine remains underestimated, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. This is especially true among groups who have been historically, socially, and economically marginalized such as communities of color, women, people experiencing poverty, people with lower levels of education, and people who hold more than one of these marginalized identities. While there is growing public and professional interest in disparities in migraine prevalence, there is a paucity of research focusing on racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities, and the social and structural determinants of health and equity that perpetuate these disparities. From a health equity perspective, migraine research and treatment require an examination not only of biological and behavioral factors, but of these identities and underlying, intersecting social and structural determinants of health.

RECENT FINDINGS

Significant disparities in migraine incidence, prevalence, migraine-related pain and disability, access to care, and quality of care persist among marginalized and underserved groups: African Americans, Hispanics, people experiencing poverty, un- or under-employment, the un- and under-insured, people who have been exposed to stressful and traumatic events across the lifespan, and people experiencing multiple, overlapping marginalized identities. These same groups are largely underrepresented in migraine research, despite bearing disproportionate burden. Current approaches to understanding health disparities in migraine largely assume an essentializing approach, i.e., documenting differences between single identity groups-e.g., race or income or education level-rather than considering the mechanisms of disparities: the social and structural determinants of health. While disparities in migraine are becoming more widely acknowledged, we assert that migraine is more aptly understood as a health equity issue, that is, a condition in which many of the health disparities are avoidable. It is important in research and clinical practice to consider perspectives that incorporate a cultural understanding of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic identity within and across all levels of society. Incorporating perspectives of intersectionality provides a strong foundation for understanding the role of these complex combination of factors on migraine pain and treatment. We urge the adoption of intersectional and systems perspectives in research, clinical practice, and policy to examine (1) interplay of race, gender, and social location as key factors in understanding, diagnosing, and treating migraine, and (2) the complex configurations of social and structural determinants of health that interact to produce health inequities in migraine care. An intentional research and clinical focus on these factors stands to improve how migraine is identified, documented, and treated among marginalized populations.

Migraine and its psychiatric comorbidities

Migraine is a highly prevalent and disabling neurological disorder associated with a wide range of psychiatric comorbidities. In this manuscript, we provide an overview of the link between migraine and several comorbid psychiatric disorders, including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. We present data on psychiatric risk factors for migraine chronification. We discuss the evidence, theories and methods, such as brain functional imaging, to explain the pathophysiological links between migraine and psychiatric disorders. Finally, we provide an overview of the treatment considerations for treating migraine with psychiatric comorbidities. In conclusion, a review of the literature demonstrates the wide variety of psychiatric comorbidities with migraine. However, more research is needed to elucidate the neurocircuitry underlying the association between migraine and the comorbid psychiatric conditions and to determine the most effective treatment for migraine with psychiatric comorbidity.

Electronic behavioral interventions for headache: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in using electronic behavioral interventions as well as mobile technologies such as smartphones for improving the care of chronic disabling diseases such as migraines. However, less is known about the current clinical evidence for the feasibility and effectiveness of such behavioral interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To review the published literature of behavioral interventions for primary headache disorders delivered by electronic means suitable for use outside of the clinician's office.

METHODS

An electronic database search of PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase was conducted through December 11, 2015. All eligible studies were systematically reviewed to examine the modality in which treatment was delivered (computer, smartphone, watch and other), types of behavioral intervention delivered (cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT], biofeedback, relaxation, other), the headache type being treated, duration of treatment, adherence, and outcomes obtained by the trials to examine the overall feasibility of electronic behavioral interventions for headache.

RESULTS

Our search produced 291 results from which 23 eligible articles were identified. Fourteen studies used the internet via the computer, 2 used Personal Digital Assistants, 2 used CD ROM and 5 used other types of devices. None used smartphones or wearable devices. Four were pilot studies (N ≤ 10) which assessed feasibility. For the behavioral intervention, CBT was used in 11 (48 %) of the studies, relaxation was used in 8 (35 %) of the studies, and biofeedback was used in 5 (22 %) of the studies. The majority of studies (14/23, 61 %) used more than one type of behavioral modality. The duration of therapy ranged from 4-8 weeks for CBT with a mean of 5.9 weeks. The duration of other behavioral interventions ranged from 4 days to 60 months. Outcomes measured varied widely across the individual studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the move toward individualized medicine and mHealth, the current literature shows that most studies using electronic behavioral intervention for the treatment of headache did not use mobile devices. The studies examining mobile devices showed that the behavioral interventions that employed them were acceptable to patients. Data are limited on the dose required, long term efficacy, and issues related to the security and privacy of this health data. This study was registered at the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42015032284) (Prospero, 2015).

Psychological interventions for migraine: a systematic review

Migraine causes major health impairment and disability. Psychological interventions offer an addition to pharmacotherapy but they are not currently recommended by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) or available in the National Health Service. We aimed to systematically review evidence on the efficacy of psychological interventions for migraine in adults. A search was done of MEDLINE, psychINFO, http://www.opengrey.eu , the meta-register of controlled trials and bibliographies. Twenty-four papers were included and rated independently by two people using the Yates scale, which has 35 points. Cochrane recommendations are that high quality reports score above the mid-point (18 points). Methods used in 17/24 papers were rated 'high quality'. However, frequently descriptions of key areas such as randomisation methods were omitted. Eighteen studies measured effects of psychological interventions on headache-related outcomes, fifteen reporting significant improvements, ranging 20-67 %. Interventions also produced improvements in psychological outcomes. Few trials measured or reported improvement in disability or quality of life. We conclude that evidence supports the efficacy of psychological interventions in migraine. Over half of the studies were from the USA, which did not provide universal health care at the time of the study, so it is difficult to generalise results to typical populations in receipt of publically funded health services. We agree with the NICE recommendation that high quality pragmatic randomised controlled trials are needed in the UK.

Behavioral treatments for migraine management: useful at each step of migraine care

Migraine is a disabling and prevalent disorder. Migraine is most effectively treated with a stepped care approach, where patients initially receive a broad level of care (primary care) and proceed to receive increasingly specialized care throughout the course of treatment. Behavioral treatments for migraine modify behaviors of people with migraine with the intention to prevent migraine episodes and secondary consequence of migraine. Behavioral treatments can be incorporated into each level of the stepped care approach for migraine treatment. In this article, we provide a rationale for including behavioral treatment strategies in the treatment of migraine. We then describe and review the evidence for behavioral treatment strategies for migraine, including patient education, relaxation strategies, biofeedback, and cognitive behavioral treatment strategies. Finally, we describe how behavioral treatments can be integrated into a stepped care approach for migraine care.

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy: How Medical Providers Can Increase Patient and Family Openness and Access to Evidence-Based Multimodal Therapy for Pediatric Migraine

Although evidence supports the recommendation for cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for pediatric migraine, few children actually receive this evidence-based intervention. In this article, we briefly review the most recent empirical evidence supporting CBT. We then identify both provider- and system-related barriers as well as patient-related barriers. Finally, we provide practical solutions to addressing these barriers in the service of facilitating children receiving optimal comprehensive management of their headaches.