Prioritising patient involvement in patient reported outcome measures- a PROMising way to improve headache care.

IF 7.3 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Lakshini Gunasekera, Jason C Ray, Neha Kaul, Helmut Butzkueven, Elspeth Hutton, Terence J O'Brien
{"title":"Prioritising patient involvement in patient reported outcome measures- a PROMising way to improve headache care.","authors":"Lakshini Gunasekera, Jason C Ray, Neha Kaul, Helmut Butzkueven, Elspeth Hutton, Terence J O'Brien","doi":"10.1186/s10194-025-02019-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal management of migraine involves care strategies that reflect what matters most to patients. This usually involves an assessment of treatment efficacy with respect to headache reduction, safety of prescribed medications and overall patient satisfaction and/or improved quality of life. Traditionally, neurologists focus on objective measures such as monthly reductions to headache and migraine days from baseline. This is complemented with various patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) to quantify morbidity and treatment effect from the patient's perspective. We present a review of currently available headache specific PROMs to summarise the design, key attributes, response format, recall period and length of questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was conducted using OVID Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library. The search strategy involved: (satisfaction OR patient satisfaction OR efficacy OR effectiveness) AND (disability OR morbidity OR burden OR severity OR impact OR patient reported outcomes OR PROMs OR outcome measures OR MIDAS OR HIT6 OR HDI OR MSQ OR MIG-SCOG OR Eq. 5D OR WPAI OR PGIC OR quality of life or QOL) AND (migraine OR chronic migraine OR headache OR primary headache OR cephalalgia OR headache disorder). A total of 16,024 articles returned. Removal of duplicates (n = 111), title and abstract screening (n = 15,853) and subsequent full text analysis (n = 19), left 41 articles. Reviewer comments led to addition of further 3 articles to our review. In total, of 44 included articles there were 20 headache-specific PROMs analysed.</p><p><strong>Results and conclusion: </strong>Our findings show that there is a significant lack of patient involvement in creation of headache PROMs thus there may be a gap between perceived treatment efficacy from the perspective of neurologists and that of patients. We suggest future assessment of migraine treatment efficacy considers what is important to the patient as a priority, in an effort to improve satisfaction with care.</p>","PeriodicalId":16013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Headache and Pain","volume":"26 1","pages":"72"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11983965/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Headache and Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-025-02019-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The optimal management of migraine involves care strategies that reflect what matters most to patients. This usually involves an assessment of treatment efficacy with respect to headache reduction, safety of prescribed medications and overall patient satisfaction and/or improved quality of life. Traditionally, neurologists focus on objective measures such as monthly reductions to headache and migraine days from baseline. This is complemented with various patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) to quantify morbidity and treatment effect from the patient's perspective. We present a review of currently available headache specific PROMs to summarise the design, key attributes, response format, recall period and length of questionnaires.

Methods: A literature search was conducted using OVID Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library. The search strategy involved: (satisfaction OR patient satisfaction OR efficacy OR effectiveness) AND (disability OR morbidity OR burden OR severity OR impact OR patient reported outcomes OR PROMs OR outcome measures OR MIDAS OR HIT6 OR HDI OR MSQ OR MIG-SCOG OR Eq. 5D OR WPAI OR PGIC OR quality of life or QOL) AND (migraine OR chronic migraine OR headache OR primary headache OR cephalalgia OR headache disorder). A total of 16,024 articles returned. Removal of duplicates (n = 111), title and abstract screening (n = 15,853) and subsequent full text analysis (n = 19), left 41 articles. Reviewer comments led to addition of further 3 articles to our review. In total, of 44 included articles there were 20 headache-specific PROMs analysed.

Results and conclusion: Our findings show that there is a significant lack of patient involvement in creation of headache PROMs thus there may be a gap between perceived treatment efficacy from the perspective of neurologists and that of patients. We suggest future assessment of migraine treatment efficacy considers what is important to the patient as a priority, in an effort to improve satisfaction with care.

优先考虑患者参与患者报告的结果措施-改善头痛护理的有希望的方法。
背景:偏头痛的最佳管理包括反映对患者最重要的护理策略。这通常包括对治疗效果的评估,包括减少头痛、处方药物的安全性以及患者总体满意度和/或生活质量的改善。传统上,神经科医生关注的是客观的测量,比如每月从基线到头痛和偏头痛天数的减少。这与各种患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)相辅相成,从患者的角度量化发病率和治疗效果。我们回顾了目前可用的头痛特定prom,以总结问卷的设计,关键属性,回答格式,回忆期和长度。方法:通过OVID Medline、Embase和Cochrane Library进行文献检索。搜索策略包括:(满意度或患者满意度或疗效或有效性)和(残疾或发病率或负担或严重程度或影响或患者报告的结果或PROMs或结果测量或MIDAS或HIT6或HDI或MSQ或MIG-SCOG或Eq. 5D或WPAI或PGIC或生活质量或QOL)和(偏头痛或慢性偏头痛或头痛或原发性头痛或头痛症或头痛疾病)。共退回16024篇文章。删除重复(n = 111)、标题和摘要筛选(n = 15,853)以及随后的全文分析(n = 19),剩下41篇文章。审稿人的意见导致我们的综述中又增加了3篇文章。在纳入的44篇文章中,总共分析了20例头痛特异性prom。结果和结论:我们的研究结果表明,患者明显缺乏对头痛PROMs产生的参与,因此神经科医生和患者对治疗效果的感知可能存在差距。我们建议未来偏头痛治疗效果的评估应优先考虑对患者重要的因素,以努力提高治疗满意度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Headache and Pain
Journal of Headache and Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
11.80
自引率
13.50%
发文量
143
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Headache and Pain, a peer-reviewed open-access journal published under the BMC brand, a part of Springer Nature, is dedicated to researchers engaged in all facets of headache and related pain syndromes. It encompasses epidemiology, public health, basic science, translational medicine, clinical trials, and real-world data. With a multidisciplinary approach, The Journal of Headache and Pain addresses headache medicine and related pain syndromes across all medical disciplines. It particularly encourages submissions in clinical, translational, and basic science fields, focusing on pain management, genetics, neurology, and internal medicine. The journal publishes research articles, reviews, letters to the Editor, as well as consensus articles and guidelines, aimed at promoting best practices in managing patients with headaches and related pain.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信