Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T21:14:54.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Demographics and Clinical Features of Patients Referred to Headache Specialists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Susan E. Jelinski ,
Werner J. Becker ,
Suzanne N. Christie ,
Rose Giammarco ,
Gordon F. Mackie ,
Marek J. Gawel ,
Arnolda G. Eloff  and
Jane E. Magnusson
Susan E. Jelinski
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
Werner J. Becker*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
Suzanne N. Christie
Affiliation:
Ottawa General Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Rose Giammarco
Affiliation:
McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
Gordon F. Mackie
Affiliation:
Richmond Hospital, Richmond, BC, Canada
Marek J. Gawel
Affiliation:
Sunnybrook and Women's College, Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
Arnolda G. Eloff
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
Jane E. Magnusson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
*
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Division of Neurology, Foothills Medical Centre, 12th Floor, Neurology, 1403 29th Street NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 2T9, 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.
Objective:

To examine demographic characteristics and clinical features of headache patients referred to neurologists specializing in headache in Canada.

Methods:

Demographic and clinical data were collected at the time of consultation for 865 new headache patients referred to five headache-specialty clinics in Canada. The Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Migraine Disability Questionnaire (MIDAS) were used to measure headache impact and disability. Data were analyzed as part of the Canadian Headache Outpatient Registry and Database (CHORD) Project.

Results:

The average age of the patients was 40 years and the majority were female (78%). Most were employed either full time (49%) or part time (13%). The majority of patients were diagnosed with either migraine or tension-type headache (78%). Over a third of patients experienced headache every day, and half had experienced a headache in the previous month which was of severe intensity. Most (80%) scored in the “very severe” category of the HIT-6 and over half (55%) were severely disabled as measured by the MIDAS.

Conclusion:

Patients referred to headache specialists in Canada are severely disabled by their headache disorders. These patients are in the most productive phase of their lives in terms of age and employment. It is important to provide the best available treatment to headache patients in order to minimize the disability and impact of their headache disorders.

Résumé:

RÉSUMÉ:Objectif:

Examiner les caractéristiques démographiques et les manifestations cliniques de patients souffrant de céphalée qui sont dirigés à un neurologue spécialiste de la céphalée au Canada.

Méthodes:

Les données démographiques et cliniques ont été recueillies au moment de la consultation chez 865 nouveaux patients dirigés à cinq cliniques spécialisées en céphalée au Canada. Le HIT-6 et le MIDAS ont été utilisés pour mesurer l’impact de la céphalée et de l’invalidité. L’analyse des données a été faite dans le cadre du Canadian Headache Outpatient Registry and Database Project.

Résultats:

L’âge moyen des patients était de 40 ans et la majorité était des femmes (78%). La plupart avaient un emploi à temps complet (49%) ou à temps partiel (13%). La migraine ou la céphalée de tension était le diagnostic posé chez la majorité des patients (78%). Plus du tiers des patients souffraient de céphalée quotidienne et la moitié avaient eu un épisode de céphalée sévère dans le mois précédent. La plupart des patients avaient un score les plaçant dans la catégorie « très sévère » au HIT-6 et plus de la moitié (55%) étaient sévèrement invalidés selon le MIDAS.

Conclusion:

Les patients qui sont référés à des spécialistes de la céphalée au Canada ont une invalidité importante due à leur maladie. Ils sont dans la période la plus productive de leur vie de par leur âge et leur situation d’emploi. Il est important de fournir aux patients qui souffrent de céphalée le meilleur traitement possible pour minimiser l’invalidité et l’impact de leur céphalée.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , May 2006 , pp. 228 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2006

References

1. O’Brien, B, Goeree, R, Streiner, D. Prevalence of migraine headache in Canada: a population-based survey. Int J Epidemiol. 1994;23:1020–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Schwartz, BS, Stewart, WF, Simon, D, Lipton, RB. Epidemiology of tension-type headache. JAMA. 1998;279:381–3.Google Scholar
3. Lambert, J, Carides, GW, Meloche, JP, Gerth, WC, Marentette, MA. Impact of migraine symptoms on health care use and work loss in Canada in patients randomly assigned in a phase III clinical trial. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;9:158–64.Google Scholar
4. Edmeads, J, Findlay, H, Tugwell, P, Pryse-Phillips, W, Nelson, RF, Murray, TJ. Impact of migraine and tension-type headache on life-style, consulting behaviour, and medication use: a Canadian population survey. Can J Neurol Sci. 1993;20:131–7.Google Scholar
5. Swarztrauber, K, Lawyer, BL. Neurologists 2000: AAN Member Demographic and Practice Characteristics. St. Paul, MN: American Academy of Neurology, 2001.Google Scholar
6. Bailey, P, Warren, S, Buske, L. Highlights of the 2002 Canadian Neurological Society (CNS) manpower survey. Can J Neurol Sci. 2005;32:425–32.Google Scholar
7. Hopkins, A, Menken, M, DeFriese, G. A record of patient encounters in neurological practice in the United Kingdom. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1989;52:436–8.Google Scholar
8. Cockerell, OC, Goodridge, DM, Brodie, D, Sander, JW, Shorvon, SD. Neurological disease in a defined population: the results of a pilot study in two general practices. Neuroepidemiology. 1996;15:73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Wiles, CM, Lindsay, M. General practice referrals to a department of neurology. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1996;30:426–31.Google Scholar
10. Bekkelund, SI, Albretsen, C. Evaluation of referrals from general practice to a neurological department. Fam Pract. 2002;19:297–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Salvesen, R, Bekkelund, SI. Aspects of referral care for headache associated with improvement. Headache. 2003;43:779–83.Google Scholar
12. Hu, XH, O’Donnell, F, Kunkel, RS, Gerard, G, Markson, LE, Berger, ML. Survey of migraineurs referred to headache specialists: care, satisfaction, and outcomes. Neurology. 2000;55:141–3.Google Scholar
13. Bekkelund, SI, Salvesen, R. Are headache patients who initiate their referral to a neurologist satisfied with the consultation? A population study of 927 patients--the North Norway Headache Study (NNHS). Fam Pract. 2001;18:524–7.Google Scholar
14. Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgias and facial pain. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. Cephalalgia. 1988;8 Suppl 7:S1–96.Google Scholar
15. Siberstein, SD, Lipton, RB, Solomon, S, Mathew, NT. Classification of daily and near-daily headaches: proposed revisions to the IHS criteria. Headache. 1994;34:1–7.Google Scholar
16. Silberstein, SD, Lipton, RB, Sliwinski, M. Classification of daily and near-daily headaches: field trial of revised IHS criteria. Neurology. 1996;47:871–5.Google Scholar
17. Kosinski, M, Bayliss, MS, Bjorner, JB, Ware, JE Jr, Garber, WH, Batenhorst, A, et al. A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: the HIT-6. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:963–74.Google Scholar
18. Stewart, WF, Lipton, RB, Whyte, J, et al. An international study to assess reliability of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score. Neurology. 1999;53:988–94.Google Scholar
19. Stewart, WF, Lipton, RB, Kolodner, K, Liberman, JN, Sawyer, J. Reliability of the migraine disability assessment score in a population-based sample of headache sufferers. Cephalalgia. 1999;19:107–14; discussion 174.Google Scholar
20. Stewart, WF, Lipton, RB, Kolodner, KB, Sawyer, J, Lee, C, Liberman, JN. Validity of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score in comparison to a diary-based measure in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain. 2000;88:41–52.Google Scholar
21. The International Classification of Headache Disorders: 2nd edition. Cephalalgia. 2004;24 Suppl 1:S9–160.Google Scholar
22. Cassidy, EM, Tomkins, E, Hardiman, O, O’Keane, V. Factors associated with burden of primary headache in a specialty clinic. Headache. 2003;43:638–44.Google Scholar
23. Ferrari, A, Pasciullo, G, Savino, G, Cicero, AF, Ottani, A, Bertolini, A, et al. Headache treatment before and after the consultation of a specialized centre: a pharmacoepidemiology study. Cephalalgia. 2004;24:356–62.Google Scholar
24. Gesztelyi, G, Bereczki, D. Primary headaches in an outpatient neurology headache clinic in East Hungary. Eur J Neurol. 2004;11:389–95.Google Scholar
25. Sheftell, FD, Feleppa, M, Tepper, SJ, Volcy, M, Rapoport, AM, Bigal, ME. Patterns of use of triptans and reasons for switching them in a tertiary care migraine population. Headache. 2004;44:661–8.Google Scholar
26. Gerth, WC, Carides, GW, Dasbach, EJ, Visser, WH, Santanello, NC. The multinational impact of migraine symptoms on healthcare utilisation and work loss. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:197–206.Google Scholar
27. Von Korff, M, Stewart, WF, Simon, DJ, Lipton, RB. Migraine and reduced work performance: a population-based diary study. Neurology. 1998;50:1741–5.Google Scholar
28. Hu, XH, Markson, LE, Lipton, RB, Stewart, WF, Berger, ML. Burden of migraine in the United States: disability and economic costs. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:813–8.Google Scholar
29. Lipton, RB, Bigal, ME, Kolodner, K, Stewart, WF, Liberman, JN, Steiner, TJ. The family impact of migraine: population-based studies in the USA and UK. Cephalalgia. 2003;23:429–40.Google Scholar
30. Lipton, RB, Scher, AI, Kolodner, K, et al. Migraine in the United States: epidemiology and patterns of health care use. Neurology. 2002;58:885–94.Google Scholar
31. Population 15 years and over by highest level of schooling (19812001 censuses): Statistics Canada, 2001.Google Scholar
32. Veuillaume De Diego, E, Lanteri-Minet, M. Recognition and management of migraine in primary care: influence of functional impact measured by the headache impact test (HIT). Cephalalgia. 2004;25:184–90.Google Scholar
33. Nachit-Ouinekh, F, Dartigues, JF, Henry, P, Becg, JP, Chastan, G, Lemaire, N, et al. Use of the headache impact test (HIT-6) in general practice: relationship with quality of life and severity. Eur J Neurol. 2005;12:189–93.Google Scholar
34. Kawata, AK, Coeytaux, RR, Devellis, RF, Finkel, AG, Mann, JD, Kahn, K. Psychometric Properties of the HIT-6 Among Patients in a Headache-Specialty Practice. Headache. 2005;45:638–43.Google Scholar
35. Bigal, ME, Rapoport, AM, Lipton, RB, Tepper, SJ, Sheftel, FD. Assessment of migraine disability using the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire: a comparison of chronic migraine with episodic migraine. Headache. 2003;43:336–42.Google Scholar
36. Bussone, G, Usai, S, Grazzi, L, Rigamonti, A, Solari, A, D’Amico, D. Disability and quality of life in different primary headaches: results from Italian studies. Neurol Sci. 2004;25 Suppl 3:S105–7.Google Scholar