Headache from the doctors' perspective

Problem of headache: A cross-sectional study

Objectives

To assess the medical students, interns, general practitioners, and family physicians' perception of neurological and otolaryngeal causes of headaches.

Materials and Methods

A prospective, qualitative, questionnaire-based cross-sectional study took place. Five hundred and seventy-one senior medical students, interns, general practitioners (GPs), and family physicians from different geographical regions in Saudi Arabia were involved in the study. An online questionnaire is used to estimate the respondents' knowledge regarding neurological and otolaryngeal causes of headaches. The obtained data were statistically analyzed using SPSS version 21.

Results

Five hundred and seventy-one participants were involved in the study. They were 377 females and 194 males with a female-to-male ratio of 1.9:1. Most of them were medical students (69.9%). However, medical interns, general practitioners, and family physicians' respondents were (17.3%), (7.5%), and (5.3%), respectively. They constituted different geographical regions of Saudi Arabia. An average level of knowledge about headaches was recorded in (55%) of the participants, while (42.7%) had a good level of knowledge about its etiologies.

Conclusions

A considerable percentage of the current study population has average knowledge about neurological and otolaryngeal factors of headache. It is advocated that the current national medical curriculum be thoroughly reviewed and clear referral pathways must be established to have better management of these cases.

Prevalence Rates of Primary Headache Disorders and Evaluation and Treatment Patterns Among Korean Neurologists

Background and Purpose

Several studies have found that the prevalence of migraine is higher among healthcare professionals than in the general population. Furthermore, several investigations have suggested that the personal experiences of neurologists with migraine can influence their perception and treatment of the disease. This study assessed these relationships in Korea.

Methods

A survey was used to investigate the following characteristics among neurologists: 1) the prevalence rates of migraine, primary stabbing headache, and cluster headache, and 2) their perceptions of migraine and the pain severity experienced by patients, diagnosing migraine, evaluation and treatment patterns, and satisfaction and difficulties with treatment.

Results

The survey was completed by 442 actively practicing board-certified Korean neurologists. The self-reported lifetime prevalence rates of migraine, migraine with aura, primary stabbing headache, and cluster headache were 49.8%, 12.7%, 26.7%, and 1.4%, respectively. Few of the neurologists used a headache diary or validated scales with their patients, and approximately half were satisfied with the effectiveness of preventive medications. Significant differences were observed between neurologists who had and had not experienced migraine, regarding certain perceptions of migraine, but no differences were found between these groups in the evaluation and preventive treatment of migraine.

Conclusions

The high self-reported lifetime prevalence rates of migraine and other primary headache disorders among Korean neurologists may indicate that these rates are underreported in the general population, although potential population biases must be considered. From the perspective of neurologists, there is an unmet need for the proper application of headache diaries, validated scales, and effective preventive treatments for patients. While the past experiences of neurologists with migraine might not influence how they evaluate or apply preventive treatments to migraine, they may influence certain perceptions of the disease.

Primary headache and migraine in headache specialists – does personal history of doctors matter?

Objective

Migraine is a common disorder affecting more than 10% of the population. The prevalence of migraine among physicians and, in particular, among headache specialists is widely unknown as is the impact of suffering from migraine on the attitudes towards migraine and on treatment recommendations of physicians. We designed a survey among headache specialists and neurologists and compared the results to general pain specialists and general practitioners.

Methods

A standardized interview in randomly selected samples of these four groups of physicians was performed. The interview included data on the prevalence of migraine and other primary headache disorders in the physician groups, self-report on their own treatment, attitudes towards migraine, and treatment recommendations for migraine. The prevalence rates were also compared to an age- and sex-matched German general population sample.

Results

The lifetime prevalence of migraine was higher in headache specialists (53.0%) than in general neurologists (43.0%), pain specialists (21.7%), general practitioners (19.3%), and in the general age- and sex-matched population (16.8%). Cluster headache prevalence was high in neurologists (1.9%) and in headache specialists (1.3%); episodic tension-type headache prevalence was significantly lower in general practitioners (19.5%). One reason, among others, was that being a migraine (or cluster headache) patient more often prompted the sufferers to become a specialist in neurology. Physicians with migraine rated the biopsychosocial concept of lower importance for migraine than did physicians without migraine. The self-treatment of migraine in physicians differs from the treatment recommendations to the patients. For example, only 36.4% of the headache specialists with migraine take triptans whereas 94.4% recommend triptans to their patients.

Conclusions

We conclude that being a headache specialist or a neurologist is associated with an increased migraine or cluster headache prevalence. This personal history of migraine leads to a more somatic view of migraine as a disorder and to different treatment recommendations as compared to self-treatment.

What is the actual prevalence of migraine?

OBJECTIVES

Population prevalence studies of migraine report prevalence rates of between 2.6 and 21.7%, with an average of ~12%. However, migraine prevalence among neurologists is reported to be significantly higher, between 27.6% and 48.6%. Increasing knowledge of the protean manifestations of migraine may explain this difference. Similarly, under-recognition of migraine in control groups may explain the lack of genetic and biomarker findings in this disorder. We therefore sought to determine the prevalence of migraine in an admixed group of individuals with varied knowledge of migraine symptomatology.

METHODS

Attendees at the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists Annual Scientific Meeting (ANZAN ASM) 2017 were surveyed anonymously. Those surveyed included three groups: neurologists, neurology trainees, and others including nonclinical researchers, members of lay organizations, and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry.

RESULTS

In total, 313 of 606 attendees responded (51.7%). 65.9% of neurologist, 57.4% of trainee, and 52.5% of others respondents had a personal history of migraine, with the difference between neurologists and others being statistically significant (p = .03). Migraine in migraineurs and nonmigraine headache in nonmigraineurs were nearly all self-diagnosed. Among neurologist migraineurs, 51.2% experienced migraine with aura and 43% migraine without aura.

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine prevalence is significantly higher in neurologists compared to non-neurologists and at least 2-3 times higher than reported in population prevalence studies. This may be due to significant under-recognition of migraine in non-neurologists. This under-recognition of migraine may significantly influence the search for genetic predictors and biomarkers of migraine.

Portuguese Primary Care physicians response rate in surveys: A systematic review

Summary Introduction: Surveys are a useful tool in primary care. However, low response rates can introduce selection bias, impairing both external and internal validity. The aim of this study was to assess the average response rate in surveys with Portuguese general practitioners (GPs). Method: We searched the Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, PsychInfo, SciELO, IndexRMP, RCAAP, Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar, Acta Médica Portuguesa and the proceedings of conferences of general practice from incepton to December 2016. We included all postal, e-mail, telephone and personal surveys to primary care physicians without language restrictions. We did not assess risk of bias of included studies, since the main outcome was survey response rate. We performed planned subgroup analyses of the use of monetary incentives, the use of non-monetary incentives, survey delivery modes and prior contact with participants. Results: A total of 1,094 papers were identified and 37 studies were included in this review. The response rate in surveys done to Portuguese GPs was 56% (95CI 47-64%). There was substantial heterogeneity among included studies (I2=99%), but subgroup analysis did not explain this heterogeneity. Conclusion: Consistent with other published studies, the average response rate in surveys done with Portuguese GPs was 56%, with substantial variation among studies. Use of monetary incentives, one of the most effective strategies to increase response rates, was not present in any of the included studies.