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.

Efficacy of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for the Prophylaxis of Migraine in Adults: A Three-Armed Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Behavioral approaches are central to the preventive treatment of migraine but empirical evidence regarding efficacy and effectiveness is still sparse. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a newly developed migraine-specific, integrative cognitive-behavioral therapy program (miCBT) combining several approaches (trigger and stress management, coping with fear of attacks, relaxation training) by comparing it with a single behavioral approach (relaxation training, RLX) as an active control group and a waiting-list control group (WLC).

Methods

In a three-armed open-label randomized controlled trial, 121 adults with migraine were assigned to either miCBT, RLX or WLC. The outpatient group therapy (miCBT or RLX) consisted of seven sessions each 90 min. Participants who completed the WLC were subsequently randomized to one of the two treatment groups. Primary outcomes were headache days, headache-related disability, emotional distress, and self-efficacy. The baseline was compared to post-treatment, and followed by assessments 4- and 12-months post-treatment to compare miCBT and RLX.

Results

Mixed-model analyses (intention-to-treat sample, 106 participants) showed significantly stronger pre-post improvements in self-efficacy (assessed by the Headache Management Self-Efficacy Scale, HMSE-G-SF) in both treatment groups compared to the WLC (mean difference at post; miCBT: 4.67 [0.55–8.78], p = 0.027; RLX: 4.42 [0.38 to 8.46], p = 0.032), whereas no other significant between-group differences were observed. The follow-up analyses revealed significant within-group improvements from baseline to 12-month follow-up in all four primary outcomes for both treatments. However, between-group effects (miCBT vs. RLX) were not significant at follow-up.

Conclusion

The miCBT has no better treatment effects compared to RLX in migraine-prophylaxis. Both treatments effectively increase patients' self-efficacy.

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Register (www.drks.de; DRKS-ID: DRKS00011111).

Triggers of Primary Headaches: Issues and Pathways Forward

The triggers of primary headaches have considerable significance for our understanding and management of headache and migraine. Triggers explain the variance in headaches - why they occur when they do. Trigger management is generally viewed as an important component of a comprehensive treatment approach for headaches. Historically, however, triggers have not had a prominent place in the headache literature. This situation began to change 20 to 30 years ago, and the pace of change has increased exponentially in recent times. Nevertheless, the field is beset with issues that have held it back from achieving more. This review will focus on elaborating those issues with the goal of suggesting ways forward. The first issue considered will be the definition of a trigger, and how specific triggers are labeled. Consideration will then be given to a classification system for triggers. The review will discuss next the evidence relating to whether self-reported triggers can, indeed, precipitate headaches, and how the capacity to elicit headaches may be acquired or extinguished. Attention will be given to the very important clinical issue of trigger management. Finally, the pathways forward will be proposed. Perhaps the most useful thing to accomplish at this point in time would be agreement on a definition of headache triggers, a list of triggers, and a classification system for triggers. This would greatly assist in comparing research on triggers from different research groups as well as eliminating some of the issues identified in this review. An authoritative body such as the American Headache Society or the International Headache Society, could establish a multidisciplinary committee that would complete these tasks. Consideration should also be given to incorporating triggers into the International Classification of Headache Disorders as an axis or via the use of codes, as this would raise the profile of triggers in assessment and management.