<scp>G</scp>erman Language Adaptation of the <scp>H</scp>eadache <scp>M</scp>anagement <scp>S</scp>elf‐Efficacy <scp>S</scp>cale (<scp>HMSE</scp>‐<scp>G</scp>) and Development of a New Short Form (<scp>HMSE</scp>‐<scp>G</scp>‐<scp>SF</scp>)

Graef, Julia E.; Rief, Winfried; French, Douglas J.; Nilges, P.; Nestoriuc, Yvonne

doi:10.1111/head.12564

Cited by 16 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…28,29 Though review of existing publications reveals a paucity of research directly examining associations between self-efficacy and nonpharmacological treatment adherence, available data indicate that greater levels of self-efficacy are associated with greater adherence to both preventative 30 and acute pharmacological treatment. 31 Further, self-efficacy mediated the association between pain severity and disability 32,33 and may be an important mechanism in pain reduction. 34 For example, French et al 35 found that self-efficacy scores were positively associated with use of adaptive coping efforts to both prevent and manage headache episodes among 146 individuals with diagnoses of tension-type headache or comorbid tension and migraine diagnoses.…”

Section: Barriers Tomentioning

confidence: 97%

Barriers to Behavioral Treatment Adherence for Headache: An Examination of Attitudes, Beliefs, and Psychiatric Factors

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Objectives Nonpharmacological interventions such as biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy, and relaxation techniques are Level-A evidence-based treatments for headache. The impact of these interventions is often equivalent to or greater than pharmacological interventions, with fewer side effects. Despite such evidence, the rate of participation in nonpharmacological interventions for headache remains low. Once obstacles to optimizing use of behavioral interventions such as local access to nonpharmacological treatment and primary headache providers are traversed, identification of barriers contributing to low adherence is imperative given the high levels of disability and cost associated with treating headache disorders. In this review of factors in adults associated with underuse of nonpharmacological interventions, we discuss psychological factors relevant to participation in nonpharmacological treatment, including attitudes and beliefs, motivation for change, awareness of triggers, locus of control, self-efficacy, acceptance, coping styles, personality traits, and psychiatric comorbidities associated with treatment adherence. Finally, future prospects and approaches to optimizing treatment matching and minimizing adherence issues are addressed. Methods An interdisciplinary team conducted this narrative review. Neuropsychologists conducted a literature search during the month of July 2017 using a combination of the keywords (“headache” or “migraine”) and (“adherence” or “compliance”) or “barriers to treatment” or various “psychological factors” discussed in this narrative review. Content experts, a psychiatrist, and a complementary and integrative health specialist provided additional commentary and input to this narrative review resulting in integration of additional noteworthy studies, book chapters and books. Results Various psychological factors such as attitudes and beliefs, lack of motivation, poor awareness of triggers, external locus of control, poor self-efficacy, low levels of acceptance and engagement in maladaptive coping styles can contribute to non-adherence. Conclusions To maximize adherence, clinicians can assess and address an individual’s level of treatment acceptance, beliefs that may present as barriers, readiness for change, locus of control, self-efficacy and psychiatric comorbidities. Identification of barriers to adherence as well as the application of relevant assessment and intervention techniques have the potential to facilitate adherence and ultimately improve treatment success.

show abstract

Section: Barriers Tomentioning

confidence: 97%

Barriers to Behavioral Treatment Adherence for Headache: An Examination of Attitudes, Beliefs, and Psychiatric Factors

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dahingegen sind die Erwartungen an verhaltensmedizinische Behandlungen von Patienten mit Kopfschmerz bislang wenig untersucht. Bei der Biofeedbackbehandlung bestehen jedoch starke Hinweise, dass Er wartungen, insbesondere die Steigerung der (kopfschmerzspezifischen) Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung, bedeutsame Wirkmechanismen darstellen könnten [8,9,16,17]. Die Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung beschreibt die Erwartung aufgrund persönlicher Ressourcen, Handlungen auszuführen zu können, die Ereignisse des eigenen Lebens beeinflussen [18].…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Die kopfschmerzspezifische Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung wurde mit der Kurzversion des Fragebogens zu Kopfschmerzmanagement und Selbstwirksamkeit (FKMS-Kurzform; [17]) erhoben. Dieser Fragebogen erfasst mittels 6 Items, 7-stufig die Faktoren "Palliative Strategien" und "Kontrollstrategien" bzgl.…”

Section: Untersuchungsmethodenunclassified

Pilotstudie zur Durchführbarkeit einer Biofeedbackkompaktbehandlung bei chronifizierten Kopfschmerzen in der ambulanten Versorgung

Graef

Rief

Korn

et al. 2016

Psychother Psych Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although biofeedback has been shown to be an effective treatment of tension-type headache and migraine, it has not been well implemented in the outpatient care system yet. Central aims of this randomized controlled pilot study were to examine the feasibility and implementation of a short biofeedback treatment of chronic headache in the outpatient care system, to estimate standardized effect sizes for treatment outcome, and to investigate the influence of expectancies on treatment outcomes. In this pilot study, the patients (N=18) were diagnosed according to the criteria defined by the International Headache Society and randomized afterwards. Patients received 8-11 sessions of biofeedback (depending on the indication: Electromyography biofeedback, Vasoconstriction-/Vasodilatation training or a combination of both). Outcome assessments took place before and after the biofeedback treatment via questionnaires. was computed based on change scores of treatment expectancies, session performance (patients and therapists), headache-specific self-efficacy (Headache Management Self-efficacy Scale-Short form), headache-related variables (Pain Disability Index, German Pain Coping Questionnaire) and comorbid strain (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). Pearson-correlations were calculated for the relations of change scores. Effect sizes for most of the assessed expectancies and coping were high (g=0.94-1.45). Improvements in the willingness to practice and disability in everyday life were moderate (g=0.40-0.51). The correlations between patients' expectancies and disability or coping were medium (r=- 0,42 - 0.41). Results showed a moderate negative correlation between the patient-rated session performance and depression (r=-0.33). The short biofeedback treatment showed a good feasibility and implementation in the outpatient care system, with pilot results indicating effectiveness. The documented associations between patient-rated and therapist-rated expectancies and the treatment outcome emphasize the importance of the assessment of expectancies.

show abstract

“…In order to assess the validity of the CHS, we used the following self-report measures in our survey (each in the German version): (i) German short form (HMSE-G-SF) (19) of the Headache Management Self-efficacy Scale (HSME) (20); (ii) Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) (21), the German version of the German Sleep Research Society (22); (iii) Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) (23), German short version (24); (iv) Cluster Headache Severity Scale (CHSS) (10); (v) Headache Disability Inventory (HDI (25), German version: Inventar zur Beeinträchtigung durch Kopfschmerzen, IBK) (26). The above-mentioned instruments were selected in order to cover the assumed core areas of distress, disability, and coping in an appropriate way.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of psychosocial factors in cluster headache – construction and psychometric properties of the Cluster Headache Scales (CHS)

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Cluster headache (CH) is clinically associated with considerable psychosocial burden. However, instruments to assess and characterize psychosocial factors in cluster headache more specifically are lacking. This study aimed to develop a self-report questionnaire, which assesses the broadest possible spectrum of psychosocial factors in cluster headache, the Cluster Headache Scales (CHS). Method Items of the Cluster Headache Scales were constructed based on a literature review and semi-structured interviews with several experts (including persons with cluster headache). A cross-sectional online survey was conducted to determine the psychometric properties and the factor structure of the Cluster Headache Scales. Data was analyzed using exploratory factor analysis as well as exploratory structural equation modelling (ESEM). Results In total, n = 342 subjects with cluster headache (mean age 47.8, 63% male, 51% with episodic cluster headache) were included. Factor analysis yielded eight clearly interpretable factors: Medical care, medication side effects, fear of attacks, disability, (auto)aggression, coping, physical activity, and financial burden, which are assessed via 36 items. The internal consistencies of the subscales were acceptable to excellent and ranged between Cronbach’s alpha = .76 and .93. The pattern of correlations with related instruments provides first evidence for convergent validity. Conclusion The CHS represents a reliable and valid self-report instrument for the assessment of psychosocial factors in persons with cluster headache, which appears useful for both clinical practice as well as research. Trial registration: The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register ( www.drks.de , ID-Number: DRKS00016502).

show abstract

German Language Adaptation of the Headache Management Self‐Efficacy Scale (HMSE‐G) and Development of a New Short Form (HMSE‐G‐SF)

Cited by 16 publications

References 42 publications

Barriers to Behavioral Treatment Adherence for Headache: An Examination of Attitudes, Beliefs, and Psychiatric Factors

Barriers to Behavioral Treatment Adherence for Headache: An Examination of Attitudes, Beliefs, and Psychiatric Factors

Pilotstudie zur Durchführbarkeit einer Biofeedbackkompaktbehandlung bei chronifizierten Kopfschmerzen in der ambulanten Versorgung

Determination of psychosocial factors in cluster headache – construction and psychometric properties of the Cluster Headache Scales (CHS)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About