Prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This study reviewed migraine prevalence and disability gathered through epidemiologic survey studies in the United States conducted over the past three decades. We summarized these studies and evaluated changing patterns of disease prevalence and disability. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of US studies addressing the prevalence, disability, and/or burden of migraine, including both episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was used in conjunction with the PubMed search engine. Eligible studies were published before February 2022, were conducted in the United States, included representative samples, and used a case definition of migraine based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD). The primary measure of disease burden was the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS). The MIDAS measures days lost due to migraine over 3 months in three domains and defines groups with moderate (Grade III) or severe disability (Grade IV) using cut-scores. RESULTS: Of the 1609 identified records, 26 publications from 11 US population-based studies met eligibility criteria. The prevalence of migraine in the population has remained relatively consistent for the past 30 years: ranging from 11.7% to 14.7% overall, 17.1% to 19.2% in women, and 5.6% to 7.2% in men in the studies reviewed. CM prevalence is 0.91% (1.3% among women and 0.5% of men) in adults and 0.8% in adolescents. The proportion of people with migraine and moderate-to-severe MIDAS disability (Grades III-IV), has trended upward across studies from 22.0% in 2005 to 39.0% in 2012, to 43.2% in 2016, and 42.4% in 2018. A consistently higher proportion of women were assigned MIDAS Grades III/IV relative to men. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of migraine in the United States has remained stable over the past three decades while migraine-related disability has increased. The disability trend could reflect changes in reporting, study methodology, social and societal changes, or changes in exacerbating or remediating factors that make migraine more disabling, among other hypotheses. These issues merit further investigation.

Social support associated with restorative treatment, professionally applied fluoride and flossing: A cross-sectional analysis including recent immigrants from Central America and Mexico in the Midwest USA.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined how Mexican and Central American immigrants' social support was associated with three selected dental outcomes among recent immigrants, prior to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Using baseline wave data from the 2017-2022 VidaSana study about the health and social networks of Mexican and Central American immigrants living in Indiana, this study utilized logistic and ordinal logistic regression to predict lifetime fluoride use, lifetime dental restoration and flossing frequency, across levels of social support and differences between Mexican and Central American immigrants. RESULTS: Data from 547 respondents were included in the present analysis (68% women; mean age 34.4 years [SD 11.2]; Central American 42%; Mexican 58%). Results show a high level of social support was associated with increased probability of fluoride use, dental restoration and higher flossing frequency for Mexican immigrants. However, social support for Central American immigrants was associated with a decreased likelihood of fluoride use, more infrequent flossing, and had no significant association with dental restorations experience. What would be a negative association between Central American immigrants and dental restoration was accounted for by education level and never having been to a dentist. CONCLUSIONS: While higher social support was linked to beneficial outcomes for oral health in Mexican immigrants, the opposite was found in Central Americans. These findings highlighted the complexities of social relationships among new immigrants, and potential heterogeneity within the Hispanic population, particularly regarding social and behavioural measures as they pertain to oral health. Further research is needed to identify the underlying mechanisms producing both differences in social support and oral health outcomes.

Pandemic Precarity: COVID-19's Impact on Mexican and Central American Immigrant Families.

Objective: The study examines the association of gender, parenthood, and marriage with reports of perceived pandemic precarity among Mexican and Central American immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic (Fall 2020) to understand predictors of vulnerability in periods of crisis. Background: Latinos/as, immigrants, parents, and women have faced significant challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Family structure, along with social expectations for gender (i.e., self-sacrificing femininity for women and hegemonic masculinity for men), parenthood, and marriage may explain perceptions of pandemic precarity - defined as the material deprivation and economic anxiety resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: This study used data from the Hispanic COVID-19 Rapid Response Study (n=400), a follow-up of the VidaSana Study of Mexican and Central American immigrants, to examine how family structure is associated with pandemic precarity (i.e., food, housing, and economic insecurity). Using linear regression models, average marginal effects (AMEs), and tests for group differences we investigate the independent and interactive effects of gender, parenthood, and marriage on pandemic precarity. Results: Men and parents reported the highest pandemic precarity. Fathers reported higher pandemic precarity than mothers. For men, marriage is associated with greater precarity, and for women, marriage is associated with less precarity, yet marriage increased precarity for those without children. Conclusion: We discuss the importance and implications of examining gender along with family structure to understand how immigrant families were faring in response to the pandemic.

Double jeopardy: Minority stress and the influence of transgender identity and race/ethnicity.

Background: Prior research suggests transgender individuals with multiple minority statuses experience higher psychological stress compared to their singly disadvantaged counterparts, and both Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC), and transgender minorities experience more frequent and severe forms of discrimination than White and cisgender individuals. Aims: This study aims to examine racial/ethnic differences in gender-related discrimination and psychological distress within a sample of transgender individuals. Methods: Using data from a convenience sample of 99 self-identified transgender adults recruited through North American LGBTQ organizations, data were analyzed to determine the relationship between race/ethnicity, gender minority stress, and psychological distress. Results: When White and BIPOC participants are compared, no significant group differences were found in levels of gender discrimination or victimization. However, some individual racial/ethnic groups reported significantly higher or lower scores and results indicate that changes in reported gender minority stress are in fact positively correlated with reported psychological distress. Conclusion: This research highlights that BIPOC are a heterogeneous group; by solely examining race/ethnicity as a binary variable, studies mask potential important differences among different groups.