Headache-related clinical features in teleworkers and their association with coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The objectives were (1) to describe and compare headache-related clinical features between teleworkers with migraine and those with tension-type headache (TTH) and (2) to determine the association between coping strategies and headache frequency, and intensity in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This cross-sectional online survey was conducted with 284 teleworkers (127 with migraine and 157 with TTH). Sociodemographic data, information related to work factors, headache clinical features, coping strategies used during the COVID-19 pandemic, and headache-related clinical features were compared between headache profiles. Bivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the association between coping strategies and headache frequency, and intensity. Results Results showed that teleworkers with migraine had longer and more painful headache episodes than teleworkers with TTH (ps < 0.001). Higher migraine frequency was associated with the use of the denial coping strategy (p = 0.006) while lower migraine intensity was associated with planning (p = 0.046) and the use of positive reframing (p = 0.025). Higher TTH frequency was associated with the use of venting, self-blame, and behavioral disengagement (ps < 0.007) while higher TTH intensity was associated with substance use and behavioral disengagement (ps < 0.030). All associations remained significant after adjusting for BMI as a covariate. Discussion/conclusion Teleworkers with migraine had more intense and longer headache episodes than teleworkers with TTH. This could be explained by the fact that a greater proportion of individuals suffering from migraine experienced headaches prior to the beginning of the pandemic compared with teleworkers suffering from TTH. Regarding coping strategies, both primary headache profiles were associated with different types of coping strategies. Most of the coping strategies associated with headache frequency or intensity were maladaptive except for planning and positive reframing that were found to be inversely associated with migraine intensity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".