The objective of this study was to evaluate the time-series relationships between stress, sleep duration, and headache pain among patients with chronic headaches. Sleep and stress have long been recognized as potential triggers of episodic headache (< 15 headache days/month), though prospective evidence is inconsistent and absent in patients diagnosed with chronic headaches (≥ 15 days/month). We reanalyzed data from a 28-day observational study of chronic migraine (n = 33) and chronic tension-type headache (n = 22) sufferers. Patients completed the Daily Stress Inventory and recorded headache and sleep variables using a daily sleep/headache diary. Stress ratings, duration of previous nights' sleep, and headache severity were modeled using a series of linear mixed models with random effects to account for individual differences in observed associations. Models were displayed using contour plots. Two consecutive days of either high stress or low sleep were strongly predictive of headache, whereas two days of low stress or adequate sleep were protective. When patterns of stress or sleep were divergent across days, headache risk was increased only when the earlier day was characterized by high stress or poor sleep. As predicted, headache activity in the combined model was highest when high stress and low sleep occurred concurrently during the prior 2 days denoting an additive effect. Future research is needed to expand on current findings among chronic headache patients and to develop individualized models that account for multiple simultaneous influences of headache trigger factors.

Theoretical developments and burgeoning research on stress and illness in the mid-20th century yielded the foundations necessary to conceptualize headache as a psychophysiological disorder and eventually to develop and apply contemporary behavioral headache treatments. Over the past three decades, these behavioral headache treatments (relaxation training, biofeedback, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and stress-management training) have amassed a sizeable evidence base. Meta-analytic reviews of the literature consistently have shown behavioral interventions to yield 35% to 55% improvements in migraine and tension-type headache and that these outcomes are significantly superior to control conditions. The strength of the evidence has lead many professional practice organizations to recommend use of behavioral headache treatments alongside pharmacologic treatments for primary headache. The present overview was prepared as a companion article to and intended to provide a background for the Guidelines for Trials of Behavioral Treatments for Recurrent Headache also published within this journal supplement. This article begins with a synopsis of key historical developments leading to our current conceptualization of migraine and tension-type headache as psychophysiological disorders amenable to behavioral intervention. The evolution of the behavioral headache literature is discussed, exemplified by publication trends in the journal Headache. Leading empirically-based behavioral headache interventions are described, and meta-analytic reviews examining the migraine and tension-type headache literatures are summarized, compared, and contrasted. A critique of the methodological quality of the clinical trials literature is presented, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses in relation to recruitment and selection of patients, sample size and statistical power, the use of a credible control, and the reproducibility of the study interventions in clinical practice.

This paper describes the development, psychometric properties, and construct and incremental validity of a Headache-Specific Locus of Control Scale (HSLC). The HSLC is a 33 item scale designed specifically for recurrent headache sufferers. It assesses the individual's perceptions that headache problems and headache relief are determined primarily by: the individual's behavior (Internal factors), Health Care Professionals, or Chance factors. The psychometric properties of the HSLC were satisfactory. Among our findings were that: (1) the belief that headache problems and relief are determined by chance factors was associated with higher levels of depression, physical complaints, reliance on maladaptive pain coping strategies (p less than .001), and greater headache-related disability (p less than .01); (2) the belief that headache problems and relief are influenced primarily by the ministrations of health care professionals was associated with higher levels of medication use (p less than .01) and preference for medical treatment (p less than .001); and (3) the belief that headache problems are determined by the individual's responses and behaviors was associated with a preference for self-regulation treatment (p less than .01). These findings suggest adaptation to headache problems is influenced not only by the frequency and severity of the headache episodes, but by locus of control beliefs. The assessment of locus of control beliefs may provide useful information not typically obtained from standard medical evaluations.

Forty-three college students suffering from recurrent tension headache were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 elec-tromyographic (EMG) biofeedback training conditions. Although all subjects were led to believe they were learning to decrease frontal EMG activity, actual feedback was contingent on decreased EMG activity for half of the subjects and increased EMG activity for the other half. Within these 2 groups, subjects also viewed bogus video displays designed to convince them they were achieving large (high success) or small (moderate success) reductions in EMG activity. Regardless of actual changes in EMG activity, subjects receiving high-success feedback showed substantially greater improvement in headache activity (53%) than subjects receiving moderate success feedback (26%). Performance feedback was also related to changes in locus of control and self-efficacy. Changes in these 2 cog-nitive variables during biofeedback training were also correlated with reductions in headache activity following treatment, whereas changes in EMG activity exhibited during training were uncorrelated with outcome. These results suggest that the effectiveness of EMG biofeedback training with tension headache may be mediated by cog-nitive changes induced by performance feedback and not primarily by reductions in EMG activity. My favorite headache article remains the 1984 article by Holroyd, Penzien, and colleagues. This influential study was the first to demonstrate that the effectiveness of bio-feedback may be mediated by cognitive changes induced through biofeedback training rather than primarily by learned physiological control. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the rationale for biofeedback training as an intervention for recurrent headache was derived from the widely accepted notion that migraine was a vascular phenomenon and tension-type headache was a musculo-skeletal phenomenon. Accordingly, thermal and elec-tromyographic (EMG) biofeedback targeted the supposed physiological responses involved in migraine and tension-type headache, respectively. The 1984 study manipulated both the contingency of the feedback in EMG biofeedback training and patients' perceptions of their success with biofeedback, using a 2 (EMG increase vs EMG decrease) ¥ 2 (high vs moderate success) experimental design. Results demonstrated headache improvement with biofeedback regardless of whether patients had been trained to decrease or to increase EMG activity. Furthermore, superior headache improvement was achieved by the group who received the "high success" condition, regardless of biofeedback training. Headache improvements instead correlated with cognitive changes in self-efficacy and locus of control. The exemplary study challenged the popular beliefs of the day about mechanisms of biofeedback, and moreover raised questions for the prevailing notions concerning basic pathophysiology of so-called muscle contraction headache. Although previous studies had questioned the mechanisms of biofeedback with altered-contingency control conditions, this study surpa...

The comorbidity of headache and psychiatric disorders is a well-recognized clinical phenomenon warranting further systematic research. Affective disorders occur with at least three-fold greater frequency among migraineurs than among the general population, and the prevalence increases in clinical populations, especially with chronic daily headache. When present, psychiatric comorbidity complicates headache management and portends a poorer prognosis for headache treatment. However, the relationship between headache and psychopathology has historically been misunderstood, and Headache has been associated with psychiatric illness in the medical literature for well over a century. Unfortunately, as noted by Silberstein and colleagues, 1 the relationship between headache and psychopathology has been clinically discussed far more often than it has been systematically studied. This relationship remains probably one of the most poorly understood, while at the same time clinically important, areas for future headache research. The present article provides a brief historical context for research examining headache and psychiatric comorbidity. Despite an arguably dubious genesis emerging from psychoanalytic case reports with little evidence supporting 493

IMPORTANCE Migraine is the second leading cause of disability worldwide. Most patients with migraine discontinue medications due to inefficacy or adverse effects. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) may provide benefit. OBJECTIVE To determine if MBSR improves migraine outcomes and affective/cognitive processes compared with headache education. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis randomized clinical trial of MBSR vs headache education included 89 adults who experienced between 4 and 20 migraine days per month. There was blinding of participants (to active vs comparator group assignments) and principal investigators/data analysts (to group assignment).INTERVENTIONS Participants underwent MBSR (standardized training in mindfulness/yoga) or headache education (migraine information) delivered in groups that met for 2 hours each week for 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was change in migraine day frequency (baseline to 12 weeks). Secondary outcomes were changes in disability, quality of life, self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, depression scores, and experimentally induced pain intensity and unpleasantness (baseline to 12, 24, and 36 weeks). RESULTSMost participants were female (n = 82, 92%), with a mean (SD) age of 43.9 (13.0) years, and had a mean (SD) of 7.3 (2.7) migraine days per month and high disability (Headache Impact Test-6: 63.5 [5.7]), attended class (median attendance, 7 of 8 classes), and followed up through 36 weeks (33 of 45 [73%] of the MBSR group and 32 of 44 [73%] of the headache education group). Participants in both groups had fewer migraine days at 12 weeks (MBSR: −1.6 migraine days per month; 95% CI, −0.7 to −2.5; headache education: −2.0 migraine days per month; 95% CI, −1.1 to −2.9), without group differences (P = .50). Compared with those who participated in headache education, those who participated in MBSR had improvements from baseline at all follow-up time points (reported in terms of point estimates of effect differences between groups) on measures of disability (5.92; 95% CI, 2.8-9.0; P < .001), quality of life (5.1; 95% CI, 1.2-8.9; P = .01), self-efficacy (8.2; 95% CI, 0.3-16.1; P = .04), pain catastrophizing (5.8; 95% CI, 2.9-8.8; P < .001), depression scores (1.6; 95% CI, 0.4-2.7; P = .008), and decreased experimentally induced pain intensity and unpleasantness (MBSR group: 36.3% [95% CI, 12.3% to 60.3%] decrease in intensity and 30.4% [95% CI, 9.9% to 49.4%] decrease in unpleasantness; headache education group: 13.5% [95% CI, −9.9% to 36.8%] increase in intensity and an 11.2% [95% CI, −8.9% to 31.2%] increase in unpleasantness; P = .004 for intensity and .005 for unpleasantness, at 36 weeks). One reported adverse event was deemed unrelated to study protocol.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Mindfulness-based stress reduction did not improve migraine frequency more than headache education, as both groups had similar decreases; however, MBSR improved disability, quality of life, self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, and depression out to 36 weeks, with decreased ...

In order to generate information about the relative effectiveness of the most widely used pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for the prophylaxis of recurrent migraine (i.e., propranolol HCl and combined relaxation/thermal biofeedback training), meta-analysis was used to integrate results from 25 clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of propranolol and 35 clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of relaxation/biofeedback training (2445 patients, collectively). Meta-analysis revealed substantial, but very similar improvements have been obtained with propranolol and with relaxation/biofeedback training. When daily recordings have been used to assess treatment outcome, both propranolol and relaxation/biofeedback have yielded a 43% reduction in migraine headache activity in the average patient. When improvements have been assessed using other outcome measures (e.g., physician/therapist ratings), improvements observed with each treatment have been about 20% greater. In both cases, improvements observed with propranolol and relaxation/biofeedback have been significantly larger than improvement observed with placebo medication (14% reduction) or in untreated patients (no reduction). Meta-analysis thus revealed substantial empirical support for the effectiveness of both propranolol and relaxation/biofeedback training, but revealed no support for the contention that the two treatments differ in effectiveness. These results suggest that greater attention should be paid to determining the relative costs and benefits of widely used pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments.

Guidelines for design of clinical trials evaluating behavioral headache treatments were developed to facilitate production of quality research evaluating behavioral therapies for management of primary headache disorders. These guidelines were produced by a Workgroup of headache researchers under auspices of the American Headache Society. The guidelines are complementary to and modeled after guidelines for pharmacological trials published by the International Headache Society, but they address methodologic considerations unique to behavioral and other nonpharmacological treatments. Explicit guidelines for evaluating behavioral headache therapies are needed as the optimal methodology for behavioral (and other nonpharmacologic) trials necessarily differs from the preferred methodology for drug trials. In addition, trials comparing and integrating drug and behavioral therapies present methodological challenges not addressed by guidelines for pharmacologic research. These guidelines address patient selection, trial design for behavioral treatments and for comparisons across multiple treatment modalities (eg, behavioral vs pharmacologic), evaluation of results, and research ethics. Although developed specifically for behavioral therapies, the guidelines may apply to the design of clinical trials evaluating many forms of nonpharmacologic therapies for headache.