Electronic‐Diary for Recording Headaches, Triggers, and Medication Use: Development and Evaluation

Bandarian-Balooch, Siavash; Martin, Paul R.; McNally, Brenton; Brunelli, Arissa; Mackenzie, Sharon

doi:10.1111/head.13184

Cited by 40 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Headache diaries are the gold standard for assessing headache frequency and other daily headache‐related parameters. Short paper‐and‐pencil or electronic headache diaries as used in the present study have good reliability and validity 19 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 73%

Wear‐Off of OnabotulinumtoxinA Effect Over the Treatment Interval in Chronic Migraine: A Retrospective Chart Review With Analysis of Headache Diaries

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To quantify wear‐off of the response to OnabotulinumtoxinA (OnabotA) treatment over the treatment cycle in chronic migraine at group and individual level. Background OnabotA administered quarterly is an effective treatment for chronic migraine. However, some patients report that headache recurs before the scheduled follow‐up injection. Methods In this retrospective chart review performed in 6 university outpatient centers or private practices specialized in headache treatment, 112 patients with a ≥30% response to OnabotA who completed headache diaries over 13 weeks after OnabotA treatment were included (age [mean ± SD] 45 ± 12 years, 82% female, headache days/month at baseline 24 ± 6). Results Compared to weeks 5 to 8 after injection, headache days/week increased significantly in weeks 12 (+0.52 ± 1.96, 95% CI [0.15, 0.88], P < .009) and 13 (+1.15 ± 1.95, CI[0.79, 1.52], P < .001), demonstrating significant wear‐off of the OnabotA effect. Similarly, acute medication days/week significantly increased in weeks 12 (0.38±1.67, CI [0.06, 0.69], P ≤ .027) and 13 (+0.83 ± 1.76, CI [0.49, 1.16], P < .001). At an individual level, 57 patients (51%) showed ≥30% wear‐off by weeks 12 and 13, and 28 patients (25%) showed ≥30% wear‐off already by weeks 10 and 11. Age, gender, OnabotA dose or cycle number, or headache center did not predict individual wear‐off. Conclusions These data show that in clinical practice, on average the response of chronic migraine patients to OnabotA injection shows a clinically significant wear‐off from week 12 after treatment. About 25% of the patients experience wear‐off even by weeks 10 and 11. It must be noted that wear‐off detected in a real‐world study on OnabotA responders can be due to wear‐off of a pharmacological OnabotA effect or a placebo effect, or to regression to the mean effects. This wear‐off phenomenon may negatively affect quality of life of chronic migraine patients under OnabotA treatment. The best way to counteract wear‐off remains to be determined.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 73%

Wear‐Off of OnabotulinumtoxinA Effect Over the Treatment Interval in Chronic Migraine: A Retrospective Chart Review With Analysis of Headache Diaries

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data related to the comparative acceptability of each pain assessment modality were collected in 60% (32/53) studies [ 5 , 7 , 21 , 22 , 24 - 27 , 29 , 30 , 34 , 36 , 38 - 42 , 47 - 53 , 56 , 57 , 60 , 61 , 63 , 64 , 66 , 69 , 72 ]. Overall, electronic programs to assess pain are highly acceptable to patients.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study (4%) found no difference in participant satisfaction between electronic and conventional pain instruments [ 47 ]. Nine studies did not ask patients to specifically declare a preference for assessment modality but still reported high patient satisfaction with the electronic method [ 5 , 7 , 27 , 29 , 48 , 52 , 53 , 56 , 64 , 74 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electronic Data Capture Versus Conventional Data Collection Methods in Clinical Pain Studies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jibb¹,

Khan²,

Seth³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The most commonly used means to assess pain is by patient self-reported questionnaires. These questionnaires have traditionally been completed using paper-and-pencil, telephone, or in-person methods, which may limit the validity of the collected data. Electronic data capture methods represent a potential way to validly, reliably, and feasibly collect pain-related data from patients in both clinical and research settings. Objective The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare electronic and conventional pain-related data collection methods with respect to pain score equivalence, data completeness, ease of use, efficiency, and acceptability between methods. Methods We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from database inception until November 2019. We included all peer-reviewed studies that compared electronic (any modality) and conventional (paper-, telephone-, or in-person–based) data capture methods for patient-reported pain data on one of the following outcomes: pain score equivalence, data completeness, ease of use, efficiency, and acceptability. We used random effects models to combine score equivalence data across studies that reported correlations or measures of agreement between electronic and conventional pain assessment methods. Results A total of 53 unique studies were included in this systematic review, of which 21 were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pain scores reported electronically were congruent with those reported using conventional modalities, with the majority of studies (36/44, 82%) that reported on pain scores demonstrating this relationship. The weighted summary correlation coefficient of pain score equivalence from our meta-analysis was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.95). Studies on data completeness, patient- or provider-reported ease of use, and efficiency generally indicated that electronic data capture methods were equivalent or superior to conventional methods. Most (19/23, 83%) studies that directly surveyed patients reported that the electronic format was the preferred data collection method. Conclusions Electronic pain-related data capture methods are comparable with conventional methods in terms of score equivalence, data completeness, ease, efficiency, and acceptability and, if the appropriate psychometric evaluations are in place, are a feasible means to collect pain data in clinical and research settings.

show abstract

“…These studies employed telemedicine equipment or computer programs dedicated to telemedicine 19,20,21 . Smartphone technology has been used for headache diaries, behavioral interventions, and electronic monitoring of headaches 22,23,24,25 . Digital technology has the advantage of facilitating information registry, thus enabling the creation of large databases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire for migraine with the help of a smartphone app

Domingues

Picon

VESCOVi

et al. 2020

Arq. Neuro-Psiquiatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT Background: Migraine is a major cause of disability, which affects many areas of life, including productivity at work. Measuring absenteeism and presenteeism resulting from migraine with the use of appropriate tools is essential for better understanding the impact of this disease. Objective: The aim of the present study was to assess the work impact of migraine using the Brazilian Portuguese version of Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire. Methods: This survey was carried out with the aid of a smartphone app (Dr Cefaleia for Doctors) containing the questionnaires: ID-Migraine, Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), and WPAI. The data were collected during a headache awareness event. Correlations were assessed between migraine impact (HIT-6) with WPAI parameters: a) work time missed (absenteeism), b) impairment at work (presenteeism), c) overall work productivity loss (absenteeism+presenteeism), and d) activity impairment outside work. Results: Overall, 305 subjects with headache were interviewed and 167 were classified as having migraine. No significant differences in migraine impact according to sex (p=0.8) and modality of work were registered (p=0.8). Females had significantly higher absenteeism score (p<0.001), but presenteeism score was not significantly different between genders (p=0.3). WPAI absenteeism and presenteeism scores significantly correlated with migraine impact (HIT-6). Conclusions: The results suggest WPAI Brazilian Portuguese version was efficient in assessing migraine related work impact. The use of an app with validated questionnaires facilitates the conduction of migraine impact research in different populations, allowing a better understanding of the burden of this disease.

show abstract

Electronic‐Diary for Recording Headaches, Triggers, and Medication Use: Development and Evaluation

Abstract: The e-diaries evaluated in this research would prove a useful tool in clinical trials of behavioral treatment for headaches.

Cited by 40 publications

References 45 publications

Wear‐Off of OnabotulinumtoxinA Effect Over the Treatment Interval in Chronic Migraine: A Retrospective Chart Review With Analysis of Headache Diaries

Wear‐Off of OnabotulinumtoxinA Effect Over the Treatment Interval in Chronic Migraine: A Retrospective Chart Review With Analysis of Headache Diaries

Electronic Data Capture Versus Conventional Data Collection Methods in Clinical Pain Studies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Assessment of Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire for migraine with the help of a smartphone app

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About