Headache Education Active‐Waiting Directive: A Program to Enhance Well‐Being During Long Referral Wait Times
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this initiative was to evaluate the clinical impact, patient acceptability, and sustainability of implementing a newly developed evidence-guided migraine education program in an academic headache center. BACKGROUND: Headache is the fifth most common reason for emergency department (ED) visits and accounts for more than 10 million physician visits annually. Successful management of headaches presents a challenge to both primary care providers and neurologists. The catchment area for an academic headache specialty center in a large metropolitan area is over 6 million with an average wait time of over 15 months. This delays diagnosis and impacts patients, thus a Headache Education Active-Waiting Directive (HEAD) was developed to improve patient knowledge and self-care skills among migraine patients awaiting an initial appointment. METHODS: This was a prospective pre- and post-intervention study. English-speaking adults, aged 18-65 years, referred to the Center for Headache at the University of Toronto for headache consultation between May and December 2012, who had not previously been assessed by a headache specialist, were consented and enrolled. Data on Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) with additional questions on emergency visits, lifestyle, and self-efficacy were collected premigraine and postmigraine education program session. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-eight patients attended the HEAD program and 177 (71%) consented to the study. Detailed predata and postdata were available for 152 participants (mean age 42.5 ± 11.9 years, 86% females); 117/150 (78%) presented with depressive symptoms and 90/146 (62%) presented with anxiety symptoms. One hundred and thirty-seven of 143 (96%) were using headache treatment. Eighty of 137 (58%) were overusing over-the-counter medications and only 21/137 (15%) were on preventative treatment. There was a decrease in the MIDAS scores of participants at postsession testing prior to neurological consultation (pre-MIDAS mean 50.0 ± 64.6 vs post-MIDAS mean 43.2 ± 50.8, P = .046), as well as a decrease in the number of patients requiring ED visit (presession 33 [22%] vs postsession 17 [11%], P = .001). A significant decrease in medication and narcotic overuse after the HEAD program was also observed. Hydration (water intake), morning protein intake, and routine sleep frequency also significantly improved postsession. Controlling for pre-MIDAS score, poor outcome defined as higher post-MIDAS score was statistically associated with lower education level [F(2,149) = 10.88, P = .001]. The majority (144/167, 86%) of the participants found the HEAD program helpful, with 70/167 (42%) very satisfied and 74/167 (44%) somewhat satisfied. One hundred and thirty-two of 167 (79%) felt empowered after attending the education session, and 152/167 (91%) felt that other patients with headache would benefit from this program. CONCLUSIONS: The HEAD program, created to help manage lengthy appointment wait times, was associated with lowering migraine-associated disability, decreasing ED visits, reducing medication and narcotic use and overuse. Education empowers patients to take an active role in their care, especially in regards to improving treatment timing and modifiable lifestyle behaviors. This education program can potentially play a role in early intervention for headache patients especially with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».