Evaluating patient and family preferences for acute and preventive pediatric headache treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To describe acute and preventive treatment preferences among youth with migraine and their parents/guardians, and to describe the degree of youth–parent/guardian preference agreement. Background Headache disorders are common in youth, but little is known about patient and family preferences for headache treatments and outcomes. Methods In this cross‐sectional survey, a headache treatment preferences questionnaire was co‐created with stakeholders, piloted, and distributed to consenting youth with migraine aged 9–18 years and parents/guardians at a tertiary care headache clinic in western Canada. Response data were summarized for youth and parents/guardians separately, and agreement rates within a youth–parent/guardian pair were compared to a hypothesized agreement rate of 80% for the primary questionnaire items. Results Seventy‐two youth and n = 94 parents/guardians participated, with n = 63 in youth–parent/guardian pairs. Freedom from pain and rapid relief, and reducing pain severity and headache frequency were top acute and preventive treatment priorities, respectively. More than 90% (69/72) agreed that ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency was a good target. For both acute and preventive interventions, swallowed pill–based options were most often selected as the preferred first‐line treatment, with neuromodulation selected as the preferred second‐line treatment. The level of agreement within youth–parent/guardian pairs on preferred treatment modalities was lower than hypothesized for acute (63% [40/63], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 52–75%, χ 2 = 10.73, p = 0.001) but not for preventive treatment (73% [46/63], 95% CI = 62–84%, χ 2 = 1.92, p = 0.166). Regarding which treatment modalities were perceived as most effective, youth–parent agreement was lower than hypothesized for both acute (48% [30/63], 95% CI = 35–60%, χ 2 = 41.29, p < 0.001) and preventive treatment (46% [29/63], 95% CI = 34–58%, χ 2 = 45.43, p < 0.001). Conclusion Youth and family preferences aligned qualitatively, but sometimes diverged quantitatively, from typical clinical trial outcomes. The level of agreement within youth–parent/guardian pairs on treatment preferences and perceptions was low. Clinicians should consider both perspectives as they may be divergent.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".