The Headache Psychologists' Role in Pediatric and Adult Headache Care: A Qualitative Study of Expert Practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the perspectives of expert headache psychologists to inform best practices for integrating headache psychologists into the care of children and adults with headache disorders within medical settings. BACKGROUND: Headache disorders are prevalent, chronic, and disabling neurological conditions. As clinical providers trained in evidence-based behavior change interventions with expertise in headache disorders, headache psychologists are uniquely positioned to provide behavioral headache treatment. METHODS: In 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of expert headache psychologists working across the United States. Open-ended questions focused on their roles, clinical flow, and treatment content. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, de-identified, and analyzed using a rapid qualitative analysis method. RESULTS: We interviewed seven expert headache psychologists who have worked for an average of 18 years in outpatient settings with pediatric (n = 4) and adult (n = 3) patients with headache. The themes that emerged across the clinical workflow related to key components of behavioral headache treatment, effective behavioral treatment referral practices, and barriers to patient engagement. The expert headache psychologists offered evidence-based behavioral headache interventions such as biofeedback, relaxation training, and cognitive behavioral therapy emphasizing lifestyle modification as standalone options or concurrently with pharmacological treatment and were of brief duration. Participants reported many of their patients appeared reluctant to seek behavioral treatment for headache. Participants believed referrals were most effective when the referring provider explained to the patient the rationale for behavioral treatment, treatment content, and positive impact on headache activity, functioning, and quality of life. Barriers cited by participants to integrating headache psychology into headache care included the paucity of psychologists with specialized headache training, lack of insurance reimbursement, limited patient time to seek behavioral treatment, and inadequate patient knowledge of what behavioral treatment entails. CONCLUSION: Headache psychologists are often core members of multidisciplinary headache teams offering short-term, evidence-based behavioral interventions, both as a standalone treatment or in conjunction with pharmacotherapy. However, barriers to care persist. Enhancing referring providers' familiarity with psychologists' role in headache care may aid successful referrals for behavioral interventions for headache.

Headache clinicians' perspectives on the remote monitoring of patients' electronic diary data: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed headache clinicians' viewpoints on potential remote access to patients' digital headache diary data and the practicalities of data utilization. BACKGROUND: With the ubiquitous nature of electronic medical records and the existence of remote monitoring (RM) for many medical conditions, there is now the potential for remote symptom monitoring for patients with headache disorders. While patients are asked to utilize headache diaries, clinicians may or may not have access to the data before patient visits, and their perspectives regarding this emerging technology are currently unknown. METHODS: After recruiting participants from the National Institutes of Health Pain Consortium Network, the American Headache Society Special Interest Section listservs, and Twitter and Facebook social media platforms, we conducted 20 semi-structured qualitative interviews of headache providers across the United States from various types of institutions and asked them their perspectives on remote access to patient headache diary data. We transcribed the interviews, which were then coded by two independent coders. Themes and sub-themes were developed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: All clinicians felt the RM data needed to be integrated into the electronic medical record. Six themes emerged from the interviews: (i) Clinician perspectives on how RM could be beneficial but at other times could create obstacles/challenges, (ii) operationally, data integration could benefit headache care, (iii) there should be initial logistical considerations for bringing RM into clinical care, (iv) education may need to be provided to both patients and clinicians, (v) there are likely research benefits associated with RM, and (vi) additional suggestions for considering potential integration of RM into practice. CONCLUSIONS: While headache clinicians had mixed opinions on the benefits/challenges that RM presents to patient care, patient satisfaction, and visit time, new ideas emerged that may help advance the field.

Lifetime history of an anxiety or depression disorder and adherence to medications used for the acute treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: In this secondary analysis of mobile health headache diary data, we evaluated the relationship between adherence to medication used for the acute treatment of migraine and lifetime history of an anxiety or depression disorder. BACKGROUND: Medication non-adherence can produce poor clinical efficacy and may be associated with medication overuse. Medication overuse was defined by taking a migraine-specific medication (MSM) for ≥10 days/month, an opioid or barbiturate for ≥10 days/month, or a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug for ≥15 days/month and having ≥15 headache days/month. Extant literature predominantly evaluates fixed-schedule medication adherence. Little is known about predictors of adherence to as-needed medication such as those used for the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: Adults with prior migraine diagnosis and at least 4 headache days/month completed baseline questionnaires assessing lifetime history of depression or anxiety disorder diagnoses and were asked to record 90 days of once-daily electronic headache diaries soliciting: Headache occurrence; symptoms; medication taken, if any, for the acute treatment of migraine; and their pain level (mild, moderate, severe) when the medication was taken. The 193 participants who completed ≥30 days of headache diary were included in this secondary analysis. RESULTS: A MSM was used as the first medication taken on 45.7% (2825/6176) of headache days. Nearly a quarter of the sample (45/193, 23.3%) overused medications for acute treatment of migraine. Medication overuse was more common in patients with a history of an anxiety disorder, odds ratio (OR) 2.01 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-3.69), but this relationship was not significant when headache days were accounted for, OR 2.02 (95% CI 0.83-4.91). Neither a history of a depression disorder, OR 1.40 (95% CI 0.90-2.16), nor an anxiety disorder, OR 1.11 (95% CI 0.71-1.72), was associated with taking medications early; however, duration of self-monitoring was associated with taking MSM early, OR 1.006 (95% CI 1.004-1.009). CONCLUSION: Lifetime history of depression and anxiety were not associated with taking a MSM early. Medication overuse may be more common in patients who have both migraine and anxiety. Taking a MSM early improved over time for all participants, even when adjusting for a history of an anxiety and or a depression disorder.

Headache providers' perspectives of headache diaries in the era of increasing technology use: a qualitative study.

Background: No matter what type of headache is being considered across various populations, one of the mainstays of headache medicine is headache tracking. This self-management tool enables patients and their providers to understand patients' underlying symptoms and the effects of treatments they have tried. This is important to determining whether headaches are related to menses for women's health, to determining the time of headache occurrence, e.g., hypnic headache, and the location and duration of symptoms, e.g., trigeminal autonomic cephalgia. Prior research has investigated what people with headaches perceive about headache diary use and how people with headaches utilize electronic headache diaries. However, headache providers' perspectives on the important factors related to headache diaries are less known. Previously, using the Modified Delphi Process, a panel of four experts opined what they perceived as the most important factors for a headache diary. We sought to better understand headache providers' perspectives about headache diary/app usage from providers working in various institutions nationwide. Methods: We conducted 20 semi-structured qualitative interviews of headache providers across the US from various institutions and asked them their perspectives on headache diary use. We transcribed the interviews, which two independent coders then coded. Themes and subthemes were developed using grounded theory qualitative analysis. Results: Six themes emerged: (1) Providers were generally agnostic regarding the headache tracking method, but nearly all recommend the use of smartphones for tracking; (2) Providers had concerns regarding the accessibility of headache trackers; (3) Providers noted benefits to integrating headache tracking data into the EMR but had mixed opinions on how this integration might be done; (4) Providers had mixed opinions regarding the utility and interpretation of the data, specifically regarding data accuracy and efficiency; (5) Providers generally felt that headache tracking lends itself to more collaborative plan management; (6) Providers recommend behavioral health apps for patients but stated that there are few digital behavioral health interventions for headache specifically. Conclusion: Interviews of headache providers, recommenders, and users of headache data are vital informants who can provide a robust amount of information about headache diary development, use in different populations, integration, and more.