General practice physician knowledge about headache: evaluation of the municipal continual medical education program

Kowacs, Pedro André; Twardowschy, Carlos Alexandre; Piovesan, Élcio Juliato; Ducci, Renata Dal‐Prá; Cirino, Raphael Henrique Déa; Hamdar, Fátima; Chomatas, Eliane Regina da Veiga; Marty, Inês Kultchek

doi:10.1590/s0004-282x2009000400004

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[18][19][20] In addition, although a few center exceptions do exist where the treating physicians had to discuss all first-time patients with their preceptors, had to discuss the follow-up consultations whenever the headache frequency reduction was not meaningful, and nearly 70% of the patients received the combination of pharmacological agents either for prevention as well as for the attacks, the pharmacological treatment of migraine in Brazilian public centers is inadequate and unsatisfying. 6,[21][22][23][24][25] Moreover, it may be suggested that the chronic form of migraine is even more undertreated in these instances. 6,22,25 As for the private tertiary centers, a combination of 2 pharmacological agents either for prevention as for the acute treatment was the most typically observed approach.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6,[21][22][23][24][25] Moreover, it may be suggested that the chronic form of migraine is even more undertreated in these instances. 6,22,25 As for the private tertiary centers, a combination of 2 pharmacological agents either for prevention as for the acute treatment was the most typically observed approach. The pharmacological classes of neuromodulators, tricyclic antidepressants, and β-blockers were mostly used for prevention, whereas triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were mostly prescribed for headache attacks, as would be expected for headache specialists acting in tertiary centers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Pharmacological Treatment of Migraine in Brazil

Krymchantowski¹,

Jevoux²

2015

Headache

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is no consensus on whether patients turning to private tertiary centers are different from those seen in public nonpaying services. However, since it is directly related to economic status and public services may render free specific medications as well as official dispensation of work, it may be argued that patients have less headache impact, and suboptimal care is delivered in these instances. As for the studied private centers as well as for the few public excellence centers, care provided is usually varied, includes a combination of drugs, and prevention is commonly used.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Pharmacological Treatment of Migraine in Brazil

Krymchantowski¹,

Jevoux²

2015

Headache

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12,13 O importante é que cada situação merece uma atitude individualizada e ferramentas não faltam para desenvolver projetos de educação.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Análise das condições para diagnóstico de doenças reumáticas na atenção básica de saúde na cidade de Sorocaba‐SP

Chiereghin

Martinez

2015

Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…People with migraine typically present in primary healthcare settings, 3,5 with most remaining in primary care rather than being treated at tertiary or specialized headache clinics 5 . Previous studies have investigated the feasibility and effectiveness of different clinician education modalities (eg, face‐to‐face continuing medical education, distribution of resources, multifaceted workshop/lecture/supervised practice approach) to improve migraine diagnosis and management in primary care, 6‐8 showing variable degrees of success with clinician education. These studies, however, have exclusively involved primary care physicians (eg, general medical practitioners).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Migraine Screening in Primary Eye Care Practice: Current Behaviors and the Impact of Clinician Education

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Migraine is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Optometrists are primary eye care providers, who regularly encounter people with migraine as an incidental finding during routine eye examinations, or when patients present to rule out whether visual or ocular problems are contributing to headache symptoms. Knowledge and use of a migraine screening tool in optometric practice is, therefore, important to be able to identify and refer people with migraine for appropriate management. Objective We sought to investigate optometrists’ current behaviors regarding screening for migraine, and to assess the effectiveness of an educational resource in promoting the use of a 3‐item validated migraine screening questionnaire, the ID‐Migraine. Methods We first conducted a cross‐sectional study using a survey to assess optometrists’ current knowledge and behaviors about migraine screening and willingness to participate in a pilot implementation program. Participants who provided their contact details were invited to watch an online educational resource about a validated migraine screening tool. After 6 weeks, these participants were invited to participate in a follow‐up cohort study involving a survey to assess the effectiveness of the educational resource. Results Ninety‐eight optometrists completed the initial survey as part of the cross‐sectional study. We found that most optometrists actively asked patients about migraine (79/98 respondents, 81%) as part of routine eye examinations and self‐rated themselves as confident in identifying migraine (71/98 respondents, 72%). However, the majority (90/98 respondents, 92%) were not aware of any validated migraine screening tools. Seventy‐eight respondents provided their contact details to receive information about the subsequent cohort study. In response to the follow‐up study survey (31/78 participants, 40%), 45% (14/31 respondents) of participants self‐reported using the ID‐Migraine tool after watching our educational video, and most of these participants (12/14 respondents, 86%) were likely or extremely likely to continue to use the tool in their practice. Conclusions From our initial cross‐sectional survey, we conclude that optometrists do not currently use validated screening tools for migraine and as such, there is an opportunity for continuing professional development in this area. Our follow‐up cohort study demonstrates that educating optometrists on the importance and utility of a validated migraine screening tool is achievable with a relatively simple, low‐time investment intervention (an online educational video). Such education may result in improved identification of migraine, which may lead to improved management.

show abstract

General practice physician knowledge about headache: evaluation of the municipal continual medical education program

Abstract: Improvement in post-CME scores confirms that the program had a significant immediate impact on the PCPs knowledge directly affecting the patient's health.

Cited by 14 publications

References 14 publications

The Pharmacological Treatment of Migraine in Brazil

The Pharmacological Treatment of Migraine in Brazil

Análise das condições para diagnóstico de doenças reumáticas na atenção básica de saúde na cidade de Sorocaba‐SP

Migraine Screening in Primary Eye Care Practice: Current Behaviors and the Impact of Clinician Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About