Public policies in headache disorders: needs and possibilities / Políticas públicas em cefaleias: necessidades e possibilidades

Abstract Although headaches have recognized impact, there are no public policies in Brazil addressing this problem. The Brazilian Headache Society and the Brazilian Association of Cluster Headache and Migraine promoted a summit to discuss Public Policy and Advocacy for headache disorders. Professionals from various segments, representing various sectors of society, gathered in April 2019 in Brasília, defining the most important points for achieving advances in public policies in headache in Brazil, such as: inclusion in the chronic diseases surveillance agenda; improving public understanding and access to diagnosis and treatment; teaching in colleges and medical residences, structuring care networks, intervention models, clinical protocols and legislation supporting public policies in headache.

Resumo Embora as cefaleias tenham reconhecido impacto, não há no Brasil políticas públicas voltadas para este problema. A Sociedade Brasileira de Cefaleia e Associação Brasileira de Cefaleia e Enxaqueca promoveram um seminário para a discussão de Políticas Públicas e Advocacy (defesa dos direitos dos pacientes) em Cefaleias. Reuniram-se em abril de 2019 em Brasília, profissionais de vários segmentos, representando diversos setores da sociedade, definindo os pontos mais importantes para que se obtenham avanços nas políticas públicas em cefaleias no Brasil, tais como: inclusão na agenda de vigilância das doenças crônicas não transmissíveis; melhora do entendimento do público e seu acesso a diagnóstico e tratamento; ensino em faculdades e residências médicas, estruturação de redes de atendimento, modelos de intervenção, protocolos clínicos e legislação de apoio às políticas públicas em cefaleia.

Attitudes of a group of Brazilian orthodontists towards the diagnosis and management of primary headache (migraine): an electronic-based survey

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the knowledge and attitudes of orthodontists in the diagnosis and management of migraine without aura. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants were dentists, recruited among members of the Brazilian Association of Orthodontics and Facial Orthopedics (ABOR). An e-mail was sent to all ABOR members, with a link to a website, especially prepared for this research. Dentists were presented to a report of a fictional patient fulfilling diagnostic criteria for a primary headache disorder, known as migraine without aura. Participants were asked to describe how they would relieve the patient's pain. Professional procedures were classified as "adequate" or "inadequate" according to the answers given. RESULTS: 161 valid answers were received (18.8 percent response rate). Of them, 36 percent of the actions were considered to be "adequate" procedures, while 64 percent were "inadequate". The results yielded 12 main procedures, based on common characteristics. Eighty-two orthodontists suggested orthodontic treatment with or without orthognathic surgery, and some suggested using stabilization appliances prior to the orthodontic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants proposed inadequate therapies, and 51 percent suggested orthodontic correction of occlusion, including orthognathic surgery. Educational activities on migraine should also target orthodontists.