Characterizing healthcare utilization patterns in a Danish population with headache: results from the nationwide headache in Denmark (HINDER) panel

Metaphorical use of "headache" and "migraine" in media: A longitudinal study of 1.3 million articles in major publications

BACKGROUND

Stigmatization and trivialization of headache confront individuals with headache disorders, but the degree to which media may contribute is incompletely understood.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to quantify the frequency of disparaging metaphorical use of the words "headache" and "migraine" in articles and summaries of major publications.

METHODS

This longitudinal study analyzed a dataset of 1.3 million articles and summaries written by authors and editors of 38 major publications. Data cover written publications from 1998 up to 2017. The use of the words "headache" or "migraine" in articles and summaries by major publications was rated by two authors (P.Z. and A.V.) as either "metaphorical" or "medical" based on their contextual application. Pearson's chi-squared test was applied to assess differences in the frequency of metaphorical use of "headache" in comparison to "migraine." Secondary outcomes were the source of publication and time of publication.

RESULTS

A total of 6195 and 740 articles included the words "headache" or "migraine," respectively; 7100 sentences contained the word "headache" and 1652 sentences contained the word "migraine." Among a random sample of 1000 sentences with the word "headache," there was a metaphorical use in 492 (49.2% [95% CI, 46.1-52.3]) sentences. Among a random sample of 1000 sentences with the word "migraine," there was a metaphorical use in 45 (4.5% [95% CI, 3.2-5.8]) sentences. The five most prevalent sources were CNN, Fox News, The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Washington Post. There was an overall increase in the number of articles containing the words "headache" or "migraine" from database inception until analysis (1998 up to 2017). The database included no articles containing either "headache" or "migraine" in 1998; in 2016, this number was 1480 articles.

CONCLUSIONS

In this longitudinal study, major publications applied a metaphorical use of "headache" about half of the time. The metaphorical use of "headache" is 11-fold greater than the metaphorical use of "migraine" in the same media sample. These depictions may contribute to the trivialization of headache and the stigmatization of individuals with headache disorders. Studies with individuals affected by headache disorders are needed to clarify potential influences.

Health equity, care access and quality in headache - part 2

BACKGROUND

Headache disorders are a global public health concern affecting diverse populations. This review examines headache service organizations in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. It addresses global challenges in pharmacological headache treatment, with a focus on safety, tolerability, reproductive and child health, and outlines disparities in accessing innovative treatments worldwide.

MAIN BODY

Organized headache services are essential due to the wide prevalence and varying severity of headache disorders. The tiered headache service model is globally recognized, although its implementation varies based on financial and workforce considerations. Headache burden affects well-being, causing disability, economic challenges, and work limitations, irrespective of location or income. All nations still require improved diagnosis and treatment, and the majority of countries face obstacles including limited access, awareness, economic barriers, and inadequate health policies. Provided adequate internet availability, telemedicine could help improve health equity by expanding access to headache care, since it can offer patients access to services without lengthy waiting times or extensive travel and can provide healthcare unavailable in underserved areas due to staff shortages. Numerous health disparities restrict global access to many headache medications, especially impacting individuals historically excluded from randomized controlled trials, such as those with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions, as well as pregnant women. Furthermore, despite advancements in researching migraine treatments for young patients, the options for treatment remain limited. Access to headache treatment relies on factors like medication availability, approval, financial coverage, and healthcare provider expertise. Inadequate public awareness leads to neglect by policymakers and undertreatment by patients and healthcare providers. Global access discrepancies are exacerbated by the introduction of novel disease-specific medications, particularly impacting Asian, African, and Latin American nations excluded from clinical trials. While North America and Europe experience broad availability of migraine treatments, the majority of countries worldwide lack access to these therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare disparities, treatment access, and medication availability are concerning issues in headache medicine. Variations in national healthcare systems impact headache management, and costly innovative drugs are widening these gaps. Healthcare practitioners and experts should acknowledge these challenges and work towards minimizing access barriers for equitable global headache care in the future.

The increasing role of electronic media in headache

Most individuals with access to the internet use social media platforms. These platforms represent an excellent opportunity to disseminate knowledge about management and treatment to the benefit of patients. The International Headache Society, The European Headache Federation, and The American Headache Society have electronic media committees to promote and highlight the organizations' expertise and disseminate research findings. A growing mistrust in science has made dealing with infodemics (i.e., sudden access to excessive unvetted information) an increasing part of clinical management. An increasing role of these committees will be to address this challenge. As an example, recent studies have demonstrated that the most popular online content on migraine management is not evidence-based and is disseminated by for-profit organizations. As healthcare professionals and members of professional headache organizations, we are obliged to prioritize knowledge dissemination. A progressive social media strategy is associated not only with increased online visibility and outreach, but also with a higher scientific interest. To identify gaps and barriers, future research should assess the range of available information on headache disorders in electronic media, characterize direct and indirect consequences on clinical management, and recognize best practice and strategies to improve our communication on internet-based communication platforms. In turn, these efforts will reduce the burden of headache disorders by facilitating improved education of both patients and providers.