A Comparison of Patients' and Neurologists' Assessments of their Teleneurology Encounter: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Background and Objectives: To better understand patients' and neurologists' assessments of their experiences regarding effectiveness of teleneurology encounters. Methods: Following an audio-video telehealth visit, neurologists asked patients to participate in a survey-based research study about the encounter, and then, the neurologists also recorded their own evaluations. Data were analyzed using standard quantitative and qualitative techniques for dichotomous and ordered-category survey responses in this cross-sectional analysis. Results: The study included unique encounters between 187 patients and 11 general neurologists. The mean patient age was 49 ± 17.5 years. Two thirds of the patients (66.8%, 125/187) were female. One third (33.2%; 62) were patients new to the NYU Langone Health neurology practices. The most common patient chief complaints were headache (69/187, 36.9%), focal and generalized numbness or tingling (21, 11.2%), memory difficulty (15, 8%), spine-related symptoms (12, 6.4%), and vertigo (11, 5.9%). Most patients (94.7%, 177/187) reported that the teleneurology encounter satisfied their needs. Patients and their neurologists agreed that the experience was effective in 91% (162/178) of encounters, regardless of whether the visit was for a new or established patient visit. Discussion: More than 90% of new and established patients and their neurologists agreed that teleneurology encounters were effective despite some limitations of the examination, the occasional need for patient assistance, and technical difficulties. Our results provide further evidence to justify and to expand the clinical use of teleneurology.

Neurologists' Evaluations of Experience and Effectiveness of Teleneurology Encounters.

Background and Objectives: To better understand neurologists' assessments of the experiences and effectiveness of teleneurology encounters. Methods: After completing an audio-video telehealth visit with verbally consenting patients, neurologists recorded their evaluations of the encounter. Data were analyzed using standard quantitative and qualitative techniques. Results: The study included unique encounters between 187 patients and 11 neurologists. The mean patient age was 49 ± 17.5 years. Two thirds of patients (66.8%, 125/187) were female. One third of patients (33.2%; 62) were new patients. The most common patient complaints were headache (69/187, 36.9%), focal and generalized numbness or tingling (21, 11.2%), memory difficulty (15, 8%), spine-related symptoms (12, 6.4%), and vertigo (11, 5.9%). Neurologists reported that they completed a virtual examination that provided enough information for medical decision-making in 94.9% of encounters (169/178, 9 missing responses). Fourteen of 25 examination elements important for medical decision-making could be performed sufficiently during virtual encounters. Examination assistance was needed for 16.4% (30/183) of patients, who were, on average, 17.3 years older than those who did not require assistance (62.9 years vs. 45.6 years, p = 0.0002). In 19.1% (34/178) of encounters, neurologists learned clinically relevant information from seeing patients in their homes. Neurologists' assessments of the effectiveness of encounters were not related to the presence (97.2%, 35/36 effective) or absence (95%, 134/141 effective) of technical difficulties (p = 0.5729) in 177 encounters (10 missing responses). Discussion: Neurologists reported that nearly 95% of teleneurology encounters were effective despite limitations of the virtual examination, occasional need for patient assistance, and technical difficulties.

Heartrate variability biofeedback for migraine using a smartphone application and sensor: A randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Although hand temperature and electromyograph biofeedback have evidence for migraine prevention, to date, no study has evaluated heartrate variability (HRV) biofeedback for migraine. METHODS: 2-arm randomized trial comparing an 8-week app-based HRV biofeedback (HeartMath) to waitlist control. Feasibility/acceptability outcomes included number and duration of sessions, satisfaction, barriers and adverse events. Primary clinical outcome was Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQv2). RESULTS: There were 52 participants (26/arm). On average, participants randomized to the Hearthmath group completed 29 sessions (SD = 29, range: 2-86) with an average length of 6:43 min over 36 days (SD = 27, range: 0, 88) before discontinuing. 9/29 reported technology barriers. 43% said that they were likely to recommend Heartmath to others. Average MSQv2 decreases were not significant between the Heartmath and waitlist control (estimate = 0.3, 95% CI = -3.1 - 3.6). High users of Heartmath reported a reduction in MSQv2 at day 30 (-12.3 points, p = 0.010) while low users did not (p = 0.765). DISCUSSION: App-based HRV biofeedback was feasible and acceptable on a time-limited basis for people with migraine. Changes in the primary clinical outcome did not differ between biofeedback and control; however, high users of the app reported more benefit than low users.

A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Impact of Motivational Interviewing on Initiating Behavioral Therapy for Migraine.

BACKGROUND: Relaxation, biofeedback, and cognitive behavioral therapy are evidence-based behavioral therapies for migraine. Despite such efficacy, research shows that only about half of patients initiate behavioral therapy recommended by their headache specialists. OBJECTIVE: Motivational interviewing (MI) is a widely used method to help patients explore and overcome ambivalence to enact positive life changes. We tested the hypothesis that telephone-based MI would improve initiation, scheduling, and attending behavioral therapy for migraine. METHODS: Single-blind randomized controlled trial comparing telephone-based MI to treatment as usual (TAU). Participants were recruited during their appointments with headache specialists at two sites of a New York City medical center. INCLUSION CRITERIA: ages from 16 to 80, migraine diagnosis by United Council of Neurologic Subspecialty fellowship trained and/or certified headache specialist, and referral for behavioral therapy for prevention in the appointment of recruitment. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: having done behavioral therapy for migraine in the past year. Participants in the MI group received up to 5 MI calls. TAU participants were called after 3 months for general follow-up data. The prespecified primary outcome was scheduling a behavioral therapy appointment, and secondary outcomes were initiating and attending a behavioral therapy appointment. RESULTS: 76 patients were enrolled and randomized (MI = 36, TAU = 40). At baseline, the mean number of headache days was 12.0 ± 9.0. Self-reported anxiety was present for 36/52 (69.2%) and depression for 30/52 (57.7%). Follow-up assessments were completed for 77.6% (59/76, MI = 32, TAU = 27). The mean number of MI calls per participant was 2.69 ± 1.56 [0 to 5]. There was a greater likelihood of those in the MI group to initiating an appointment (22/32, 68.8% vs 11/27, 40.7%, P = .0309). There were no differences in appointment scheduling or attendance. Reasons stated for not initiating behavioral therapy were lack of time, lack of insurance/funding, prioritizing other treatments, and travel plans. CONCLUSIONS: Brief telephone-based MI may improve rates of initiation of behavioral therapy for migraine, but other barriers appear to lessen the impact on scheduling and attending behavioral therapy appointments.