Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T20:24:41.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effectiveness of a Multidisciplinary Treatment Program for Chronic Daily Headache

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Jane E. Magnusson ,
Connie M. Riess  and
Werner J. Becker
Jane E. Magnusson
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary and the Calgary Health Region, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Connie M. Riess
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary and the Calgary Health Region, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Werner J. Becker
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary and the Calgary Health Region, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background:

Chronic daily headache (CDH: headache on fifteen days a month or more) is one of the most common forms of chronic pain. The relative efficacy of different treatment methods for these patients needs to be determined.

Objective:

To compare treatment outcomes for patients with CDH treated in a traditional office-based pharmacological treatment program with a second group treated in a multidisciplinary management program.

Methods:

Patient outcomes were measured using changes in the Headache Disability Inventory (HDI) and the Short-Form-36 (SF-36) over the treatment period. Outcomes from seventy patients treated in an office setting were compared to thirty-seven patients treated in a multidisciplinary headache treatment program. Both groups received similar pharmacological treatment. All patients treated in the office setting and the majority of patients in the multidisciplinary program had transformed migraine.

Results:

Even though a reduction in headache days per month occurred, mean headache related disability (measured by HDI) and mean Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL measured by SF-36) did not improve for the patient group treated in the office setting but did improve significantly for the patient group treated in the multidisciplinary headache program.

Conclusion:

For patients with CDH, headache-related disability and HRQoL is more likely to improve with management in a multidisciplinary headache treatment program as compared to the traditional specialist consultation - family physician office-based setting.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , February 2004 , pp. 72 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2004

References

1.O’Brien, B, Goeree, R, Streiner, D.Prevalence of migraine headachein Canada: a population-based survey. Int J Epidemiol 1994;23(5):1020–1026.Google Scholar
2.Scher, AI, Stewart, SF, Liberman, J, Lipton, RB.Prevalence offrequent headache in a population sample. Headache 1998;38:497–506.Google Scholar
3.Castillo, J, Munoz, P, Guitera, V, Pascual, J.Epidemiology of chronicdaily headache in the general population. Headache 1999;39:190–196.Google Scholar
4.Henry, P, Auray, JP, Gaudin, AF, et al.Prevalence and clinicalcharacteristics of migraine in France. Neurology 2002;59:232–237.Google Scholar
5.Silberstein, SD, Lipton, RB, Sliwinski, M. Classification of daily andne ar-daily headaches: field trial of revised IHS criteria.Neurology 1996;47:871–875.Google Scholar
6.Mathew, NT, Stubits, E, Migram, MP.Transformation of episodicmigraine into daily headache: analysis of factors. Headache 1981;22:66–68.Google Scholar
7.Mathew, NT.Chronic refractory headache. Neurology 1993;Google Scholar
8.Terwindt, GM, Ferrari, MD, Tijhuis, M, et al.The impact of migraineon quality of life in the general population: the GEM study. Neurology 2000;55:624–629.Google Scholar
9.Monzon, MJ, Lainez, MJA.Quality of life in migraine and chronicdaily headache patients. Cephalalgia 1998;18:638–643.Google Scholar
10.Walker, BB, Nash, JM.Effectiveness of a multidisciplinaryoutpatient headache management program. Med Health R I 2002;85:269–272.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Lemstra, M, Stewart, B, Olszynski, WP.Effectiveness ofmultidisciplinary intervention in the treatment of migraine: a randomised clinical trial. Headache 2002;42:845–854.Google Scholar
12.Jacobson, GP, Ramadan, NM, Aggarwal, SK, Newman, CW.TheHenry Ford Hospital Headache Disability Inventory (HDI).Neurology 1994;44:837–842.Google Scholar
13.Ware, JE.SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide.Boston MA: The Health Institute. New England Medical CenterHospitals Inc. 1997.Google Scholar
14.Headache Classification Committee of the International HeadacheSociety. Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgias, and facial pain. Cephalalgia 1988;8(Suppl 7):1–96.Google Scholar
15.Magnusson, JE, Becker, WJ.A comparison of disability andpsychological factors in migraine and transformed migraine. Cephalalgia 2000;22:172–178.Google Scholar
16.Rowbotham, MC.What is a “clinically meaningful” reduction inpain? Pain 2001;94:131–132.Google Scholar
17.Farrar, JT,Young, JP Jr, LaMoreaux, L, Werth, JL, Poole, RM.Clinicalimportance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001;94:149–158.Google Scholar
18.Klapper J on behalf of the Divalproic Sodium in MigraineProphylaxis Study Group. Divalproic sodium in migraine prophylaxis: a dose-controlled study. Cephalalgia 1997;17:103–108.Google Scholar
19.Drummond, PD, Holroyd, KA.Psychological modulation of pain. In:Olesen, J, Tfelt-Hansen, P, and Welch, KMA, (Eds). T h eHeadaches. 2nd ed.Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000:217–221.Google Scholar
20.Martin, NJ, Holroyd, KA, Penzien, DB.The headache specific locusof control scale: adaptation to recurrent headaches. Headache 1990;30:729–734.Google Scholar
21.Martin, N, Holroyd, K, Rokiki, L.The headache self-efficacy scale:adaptation to recurrent headaches. Headache 1993;33:244–248.Google Scholar
22.Holroyd, KA, Lipchik, GL, Penzien, DB.Psychological managementof recurrent headache disorders: empirical basis for clinical practice. In: Dobson, KS, Craig, KD, (Eds). Empirically Supported Therapies: Best Practice in Professional Psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1998:187–236.Google Scholar
23.Blanchard, EB, Andrasik, F.Management of Chronic Headaches. Pergamon Press, Toronto 1985:54–79.Google Scholar
24.Robbins, L.Precipitating factors in migraine: a retrospective reviewof 494 patients. Headache 1994;34:214–216.Google Scholar
25.Scharff, L, Turk, DC, Marcus, DA.Triggers of headache episodes andcoping responses of headache diagnostic groups. Headache 1995;35:397–403.Google Scholar
26.McCrory, DC, Penzien, DB, Rains, JC, Hasselblad, V.Efficacy ofbehavioral treatments for migraine and tension-type headache: meta-analysis of controlled trails. Headache 1996;36:272.Google Scholar
27.Holroyd, KA, Andrasik, F.Coping and self control of chronic tensionheadache. J Consult Clin Psychol 1978;5:1036–1045.Google Scholar
28.Holroyd, K.Integrating pharmacologic and non-pharmacologictreatments. In: Tolison, CD, Kunkel, RS, (Eds). Headache diagnosis and interdisciplinary treatment. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1993:309–320.Google Scholar
29.Mathew, NT.Prophylaxis of migraine and mixed headache: arandomized controlled study. Headache 1981;21:105–109.Google Scholar
30.Mathew, NT.Drug induced headache. Neurol Clin 1990;8:903–913.Google Scholar
31.McGrath, PJ, Holroyd, KA, Srobi, MJ.Psychological and behavioraltreatments of migraine. In: Olesen, J, Tflet-Hansen, P, Welch, KMA (Eds). The Headaches. 2nd ed.Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia 2000:371–377.Google Scholar
32.Loder, E, Biondi, D.Disease modification in migraine: A concept thathas come of age? Headache 2003;43:135–143.Google Scholar
33.Welch, KM, Nagesh, V, Aurora, SK, Gelman, N.Periaqueductal graymatter dysfunction in migraine: cause or the burden of illness? Headache 2001;41:629–637.Google Scholar