MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985108938 · doi:10.3109/09638288.2011.610496

Pacing as a treatment modality in migraine and tension-type headache

2011· review· en· W1985108938 on OpenAlexaff
Allison McLean, Kathryn Coutts, Werner J. Becker

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical Centre
FundersHealth Research Board
KeywordsMedicineMigrainePhysical therapyTension headacheHeadachesSpecialtyIntervention (counseling)AuraCervicogenic headachePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To review the pacing literature; describe the use of pacing in a specialty headache clinic; and provide client feedback regarding the effectiveness of pacing in headache self-management. Method: The evidence for this report was derived from a structured literature review, an established pacing intervention program for patients with headache, and patient self-report questionnaire. Results: There are frequent references to pacing in the chronic pain and rheumatic disease literature, but no universal definition and, until recently, few outcome studies. References to pacing in the headache literature are limited. For a small sub-group of clients at a specialty headache clinic (n = 20), pacing principles taught by occupational therapists were reported to prevent increases in headache intensity (70%); decrease headache intensity (65%), and shorten the duration of a headache (40%). Additionally, 70% of respondents used pacing to prevent headache onset. Pacing was seen to contribute to increased quality of life, headache self-efficacy, function, and independence. There were a variety of opinions regarding the most helpful pacing components. The most frequently endorsed were identify and prioritize responsibilities; balance activity and rest; schedule regular rest breaks; and delegate or eliminate tasks. Conclusions: Pacing appears to play an important role in headache self-management. More pacing research is required in both headache and chronic pain populations.Implications for RehabilitationMigraine and tension-type headaches are associated with significant pain and disability.Overexertion and stress are commonly reported headache triggers.Activity pacing allows individuals with migraine and tension-type headache to self-regulate tasks and activities so they may manage physical exertion and mental stress levels.Pacing may help decrease headache intensity and duration, as well as increase quality of life, function, and self-efficacy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207