Pain acceptance as a change mechanism for mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for migraine.

Migraine is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Third wave therapies, such as Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy for Migraine (MBCT-M), have proven efficacious in reducing headache-related disability. However, research is needed to better understand the change mechanisms involved in these third-wave therapies. Acceptance is a fundamental component of third wave therapies, and more research is warranted on the role of pain acceptance in MBCT-M. It is also valuable to understand the independent roles of the two components of pain acceptance-pain willingness (PW) and activity engagement (AE). The current study is a secondary analysis of a randomized control trial of MBCT-M. Sixty participants were included in the study (MBCT = 31; WL/TAU = 29). Baseline correlations between overall pain acceptance, PW, AE, and headache-related disability were run. Mixed models assessed change from baseline to one-month post-treatment and treatment-by-time interaction for overall pain acceptance, PW, and AE. Mixed models also assessed maintenance of changes at 6-month follow-up in the MBCT-M group. Longitudinal mediation models assessed whether change in pain acceptance, PW, and AE mediated the relationship between treatment and change in headache-related disability. Pain acceptance, PW, and AE were all negatively correlated with headache-related disability at baseline. Pain acceptance, PW, and AE all significantly increased over time in both the waitlist/ treatment-as-usual group (WL/TAU) and the MBCT-M group. Only AE increased more in the MBCT group than the WL/TAU group. Change in pain acceptance, PW, and AE all significantly mediated the relationship between MBCT and change in headache-related disability. The study supports the importance of pain acceptance, specifically the activity engagement component, in MBCT-M.

Essential components of care in a multidisciplinary headache center: Perspectives from headache neurology specialists.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Comprehensive headache care involves numerous specialties and components that have not been well documented or standardized. This study aimed to elicit best practices and characterize important elements of care to be provided in multidisciplinary headache centers. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of headache neurology specialists from across the US, using open-ended questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Coded data were further analyzed using immersion/crystallization techniques for final interpretation. RESULTS: Mean years providing headache care was 17.7 (SD = 10.6). Twelve of the 13 participants held United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties headache certification. Six described their practice site as providing multidisciplinary headache care. Participants explained most of their patients had seen multiple doctors over many years, and had tried numerous unsuccessful treatments. They noted patients with chronic headache frequently present with comorbidities and become stigmatized. All participants asserted successful care depends on taking time to talk with and listen to patients, gain understanding, and earn trust. All participants believed multidisciplinary care is essential within a comprehensive headache center, along with staffing enough headache specialists, implementing detailed headache intake and follow-up protocols, and providing the newest medications, neuromodulation devices, botulinum toxin injections, monoclonal antibodies, nerve blocks and infusions, and treatment from a health psychologist. Other essential services for a headache center are other behavioral health practitioners providing cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness, biofeedback and pain management; and autonomic neurology, neuropsychology, vestibular audiology, sleep medicine, physical therapy, occupational therapy, exercise physiology, speech therapy, nutrition, complementary integrative health modalities, and highly trained support staff. CONCLUSION: While headache neurology specialists form the backbone of headache care, experts interviewed for this study maintained their specialty is just one of many types of care needed to adequately treat patients with chronic headache, and this is best provided in a comprehensive, multidisciplinary center.

Complementary and integrative medicine perspectives among veteran patients and VHA healthcare providers for the treatment of headache disorders: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate veteran patient and provider perceptions and preferences on complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) for headache management. BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has spearheaded a Whole Health system of care focusing on CIM-based care for veteran patients. Less is known about patients' and providers' CIM perceptions and preferences for chronic headache management. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 veteran patients diagnosed with headache and 43 clinical providers, across 12 VHA Headache Centers of Excellence (HCoE), from January 2019 to March 2020. We conducted thematic and case comparative analyses. RESULTS: Veteran patients and VHA clinical providers viewed CIM favorably for the treatment of chronic headache. Specific barriers to CIM approaches included: (1) A lack of personnel specialized in specific CIM approaches for timely access, and (2) variation in patient perceptions and responses to CIM treatment efficacy for headache management. CONCLUSION: Veteran patients and VHA clinical providers in this study viewed CIM favorably as a safe addition to mainstream headache treatments. Advantages to CIM include favorable adverse effect profiles and patient autonomy over the treatment. By adding more CIM providers and resources throughout the VHA, CIM modalities may be recommended more routinely in the management of veterans with headache.

Response to Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy Differs Between Chronic and Episodic Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate whether the benefits of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Migraine (MBCT-M) on headache disability differs among people with episodic and chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: This is a planned secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. After a 30-day baseline, participants were stratified by episodic (6-14 d/mo) and CM (15-30 d/mo) and randomized to 8 weekly individual sessions of MBCT-M or wait list/treatment as usual (WL/TAU). Primary outcomes (Headache Disability Inventory; Severe Migraine Disability Assessment Scale [scores ≥ 21]) were assessed at months 0, 1, 2, and 4. Mixed models for repeated measures tested moderation with fixed effects of treatment, time, CM, and all interactions. Planned subgroup analyses evaluated treatment*time in episodic and CM. RESULTS: Of 60 participants (MBCT-M N = 31, WL/TAU N = 29), 52% had CM. CM moderated the effect of MBCT-M on Severe Migraine Disability Assessment Scale, F(3, 205) = 3.68, p = 0.013; MBCT-M vs WL/TAU reduced the proportion of people reporting severe disability to a greater extent among people with episodic migraine (-40.0% vs -14.3%) than CM (-16.4% vs +8.7%). Subgroup analysis revealed MBCT-M (vs WL/TAU) significantly reduced Headache Disability Inventory for episodic (p = 0.011) but not CM (p = 0.268). CONCLUSIONS: MBCT-M is a promising treatment for reducing headache-related disability, with greater benefits in episodic than CM. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02443519. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that MBCT-M reduces headache disability to a greater extent in people with episodic than CM.

Does Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Migraine Reduce Migraine-Related Disability in People with Episodic and Chronic Migraine? A Phase 2b Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The current Phase 2b study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for migraine (MBCT-M) to reduce migraine-related disability in people with migraine. BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based interventions represent a promising avenue to investigate effects in people with migraine. MBCT teaches mindfulness meditation and cognitive-behavioral skills and directly applies these skills to address disease-related cognitions. METHODS: Participants with migraine (6-30 headache days/month) were recruited from neurology office referrals and local and online advertisements in the broader New York City area. During the 30-day baseline period, all participants completed a daily headache diary. Participants who met inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized in a parallel design, stratified by chronic migraine status, to receive either 8 weekly individual MBCT-M sessions or 8 weeks of waitlist/treatment as usual (WL/TAU). All participants completed surveys including primary outcome evaluations at Months 0, 1, 2, and 4. All participants completed a headache diary during the 30-day posttreatment evaluation period. Primary outcomes were the change from Month 0 to Month 4 in the headache disability inventory (HDI) and the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) (total score ≥ 21 indicating severe disability); secondary outcomes (headache days/30 days, average headache attack pain intensity, and attack-level migraine-related disability [Migraine Disability Index (MIDI)]) were derived from the daily headache diary. RESULTS: Sixty participants were randomized to receive MBCT-M (n = 31) or WL/TAU (n = 29). Participants (M age = 40.1, SD = 11.7) were predominantly White (n = 49/60; 81.7%) and Non-Hispanic (N = 50/60; 83.3%) women (n = 55/60; 91.7%) with a graduate degree (n = 35/60; 55.0%) who were working full-time (n = 38/60; 63.3%). At baseline, the average HDI score (51.4, SD = 19.0) indicated a moderate level of disability and the majority of participants (50/60, 83.3%) fell in the "Severe Disability" range in the MIDAS. Participants recorded an average of 16.0 (SD = 5.9) headache days/30 days, with an average headache attack pain intensity of 1.7 on a 4-point scale (SD = 0.3), indicating moderate intensity. Average levels of daily disability reported on the MIDI were 3.1/10 (SD = 1.8). For the HDI, mean scores decreased more from Month 0 to Month 4 in the MBCT-M group (-14.3) than the waitlist/treatment as an usual group (-0.2; P < .001). For the MIDAS, the group*month interaction was not significant when accounting for the divided alpha, P = .027; across all participants in both groups, the estimated proportion of participants falling in the "Severe Disability" category fell significantly from 88.3% at Month 0 to 66.7% at Month 4, P < .001. For diary-reported headache days/30 days an average headache attack pain intensity, neither the group*month interaction (Ps = .773 and .888, respectively) nor the time effect (Ps = .059 and .428, respectively) was significant. Mean MIDI scores decreased in the MBCT-M group (-0.6/10), whereas they increased in the waitlist/treatment as an usual group (+0.3/10), P = .007. CONCLUSIONS: MBCT-M demonstrated efficacy to reduce headache-related disability and attack-level migraine-related disability. MBCT-M is a promising emerging treatment for addressing migraine-related disability.

Cross-Sectional Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Headache-Specific Locus of Control Scale in People With Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the psychometric properties (component structure, reliability, and construct validity) of the Headache-Specific Locus of Control scale in several clinical migraine populations. BACKGROUND: Headache-specific locus of control beliefs may impact a person's behavioral decisions that affect the likelihood of migraine attack onset, emotional responses to migraine attacks, coping strategies used, and treatment adherence. The 33-item Headache-Specific Locus of Control scale is the most widely used measure of locus of control specific to headache yet psychometric evaluations remain limited. METHODS: Six hundred and ninety-five adults with a diagnosis of migraine from 5 different research studies completed cross-sectional self-report measures including the Headache-Specific Locus of Control scale and measures of quality of life and disability (Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire and Migraine Disability Assessment). RESULTS: Five Headache-Specific Locus of Control components emerged from Horn's Parallel Analysis, Minimum Average Partial test, and Principal Component Analysis (eigenvalues: Presence of Internal = 5.7, Lack of Internal = 4.0, Luck = 2.9, Doctor = 2.0, and Treatment = 1.5). The 33 Headache-Specific Locus of Control items demonstrated adequate internal consistency for total (α = 0.79) and subscale scores (α's = 0.69 to 0.88). This study found preliminary evidence of convergent validity. For example, Lack of Internal (r = -0.12, P = 0.004), Doctor (r = -0.20, P < .001), and Treatment (r = -0.12, P = .004) beliefs were associated with higher overall migraine-specific quality of life impairments. CONCLUSIONS: The Headache-Specific Locus of Control scale is a reliable and valid measure of headache-specific locus of control. Findings suggest that headache-specific locus of control is more multidimensional than previous conceptualizations and contribute to our understanding of control beliefs as a potential mechanism for migraine treatment.