Multidisciplinary Treatment for Headache in the Canadian Healthcare Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Multidisciplinary treatment programs are seen as an effective way to treat patients with chronic illness. The purpose of this study was to describe a multidisciplinary headache program which was developed in the Canadian public healthcare setting, and to report on patient perceptions of the program and patient treatment outcomes. METHODS: The Calgary Headache Assessment and Management Program (CHAMP) was developed with initial funding from Alberta Health, and continued with function from the Calgary Health Region. Patient perceptions of the program were obtained with questionnaires. Outcome measures for a cohort of patients who completed the Self-Management Workshop were obtained using standard headache related disability measures. RESULTS: Patient perceptions of the education session, the Lifestyle Assessment, and the Self-Management Workshop were very positive. Headache Disability Inventory scores fell from 56.2 to 46.3 from baseline to three months post Self-Management Workshop (p < .001). Corresponding scores for the HIT-6 were 63.6 and 58.2 (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary headache treatment programs can be developed in the Canadian public healthcare system. The program described here was well accepted by many patients and perceived to be useful by them. Headache related disability as measured by standard measures was significantly reduced after participation in the program.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".