Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation Intervention Activities for People with Migraine: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Migraine management involves a wide range of clinical rehabilitation practices. This variability hampers the clinical applicability of these protocols. Before proposing any recommendations for migraine interventions, one needs to identify how interventions are generally structured. This study aimed to systematically map the activities in multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs for people with migraine. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review from January 2002 to April 2024 in MEDLINE®, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, AMED, APA PsycInfo and Academic Search Complete databases. Search terms were related to (i) migraine or headache, (ii) intervention and (iii) multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary care. Language and population inclusion criteria were applied. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles and extracted data according to three topics: (i) activities and their modalities, (ii) professionals involved and (iii) tools used. RESULTS: The activities identified ranged from medication management and a variety of exercise types and lifestyle changes using education strategies to stress management techniques. Psychological interventions were rarely defined and appeared to overlap with education and stress management techniques. Information on treatment delivery was scarce. Professionals from many disciplines were mentioned. The outcomes assessed included migraine or headache characteristics, psychological symptoms, disability and quality of life. No explicit theoretical models were found. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the heterogeneity of activities in multidisciplinary interventions for people with migraine. Operationalizing an intervention based on a theoretical model is essential for allowing replications, evaluation and implementation in rehabilitation settings.
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 | 0.012 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".