Access to Triptans for Acute Episodic Migraine: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to examine factors related to access of triptans among multiple stakeholder groups. BACKGROUND: Triptans are a cornerstone of pain management for the acute treatment of migraine, but actual utilization of triptans is lower than ideal. Initial and continued access to triptans may be an important clinical issue in the acute treatment of migraines, but factors affecting access at the patient, provider, and health-care system levels have not been comprehensively explored. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, between August 2013 and January 2014. Three participant groups were recruited to the qualitative study: (1) migraineurs who have experience accessing triptans; (2) physicians, including primary care physicians (PCPs) and neurologists, who have prescribed triptans; and (3) pharmacists who have dispensed triptans. Qualitative data were collected through one-on-one, semi-structured telephone interviews. The framework approach was used for data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Data collected from 19 migraineurs, 6 physicians, and 8 pharmacists were included in the analysis. Study participants discussed various factors that facilitate or hinder access to triptans, which were synthesized into four themes that emerged at the patient, provider, and health-care systems levels: (1) awareness; (2) apathy; (3) advocacy; and (4) affordability. Across all participant groups, awareness of available treatments and coverage policies for those treatments were potential factors relating to timely drug provision. Participants describe apathy in terms of patients' health-seeking behaviors and physicians' lack of concern toward migraine, which were seen as factors that could delay diagnosis and provision of appropriate treatment. Patients engaging in self-advocacy enhanced their ability to seek timely and appropriate provision of triptans at the patient level. At the health-care provider level, pharmacists were identified by patients as advocates for receiving more effective treatments for their migraines; pharmacists also self-identified with the advocate role. The affordability of triptans was a key concern impacting access at the systems level, but coverage limitations (eg, quantity limits) were also described to influence the appropriateness of prescribed migraine treatment. CONCLUSION: This study fills a gap in knowledge about access to triptans and how this may be impacted by patient, provider, and health-care systems barriers. Overall, our study sheds light on the experiences of prescribing, dispensing, and accessing triptans for migraine treatment, and unveils important information that can impact how patients access these drugs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".