Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Headache ; 60(6): 1093-1102, 2020 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32207148

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: There are safe and well-tolerated level A evidence-based behavioral therapies for the prevention of migraine. They are biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy, and relaxation. However, the behavioral therapies for the prevention of migraine are underutilized. OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine whether people with migraine with 4 or more headache days a month had preferences regarding the type of delivery of the behavioral therapy (in-person, smartphone based, telephone) and whether they would be willing to pay for in-person behavioral therapy. We also sought to determine the predictors of likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional study design, we developed an online survey using TurkPrime, an online survey platform, to assess how likely TurkPrime participants who screened positive for migraine using the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention screen were to pursue different delivery methods of the behavioral therapy. We report descriptive statistics and quantitative analyses. RESULTS: There were 401 participants. Median age was 34 [IQR: 29, 41] years. More than two thirds of participants (70.3%, 282/401) were women. Median number of headache days/ month was 5 [IQR: 2.83, 8.5]. Some (12.5%, 50/401) used evidence-based behavioral therapy for migraine. The participants reported that they were "somewhat likely" to pursue in-person or smartphone behavioral therapy and behavioral therapy covered by insurance but were neutral about pursuing the telephone-based behavioral therapy. Participants were "not very likely" to pay out of pocket for the behavioral therapy. Migraine-related disability as measured by the MIDAS grading score was associated with likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy in-person (P = .004), via telephone (P = .015), and via smart phone (P < .001), and covered by insurance (P = .001). However, migraine-related disability was not associated with likelihood to pursue out of pocket (P = .769) behavioral therapy. Pain intensity was predictive of likelihood of pursuing the behavioral therapy for migraine when covered by insurance. Other factors including education, employment, and headache days were not predictors. CONCLUSION: People with migraine prefer in-person and smartphone-based behavioral therapy to telephone-based behavioral therapy. Migraine-related disability is associated with likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy (independent of type of delivery of the behavioral therapy-in-person, telephone based or smartphone based). However, participants were not very likely to pay for the behavioral therapy.


Assuntos
Terapia Comportamental , Cobertura do Seguro , Transtornos de Enxaqueca/terapia , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde , Preferência do Paciente , Telemedicina , Telefone , Adulto , Terapia Comportamental/economia , Terapia Comportamental/métodos , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Cobertura do Seguro/economia , Masculino , Transtornos de Enxaqueca/economia , Preferência do Paciente/economia , Smartphone , Telemedicina/economia
2.
J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci ; 32(2): 196-200, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31394990

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Behavioral treatments for migraine prevention are safe and effective but underutilized in migraine management. Health message framing may be helpful in guiding patients with treatment decision making. The authors assessed associations between message framing and the willingness to seek migraine behavioral treatment among persons with a diagnosis of migraine headache. METHODS: A total of 401 individuals (median age=34 years [interquartile range, 12 years]) who screened positive for migraine, as determined by the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention questionnaire, were assessed. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of four message frames using TurkPrime: specific loss framing (N=101), specific gain framing (N=98), nonspecific loss framing (N=102), and nonspecific gain framing (N=100). The message frames were initially piloted for 56 participants and then revised by a headache specialist, with input from a communications specialist, and randomly distributed to the larger sample. RESULTS: More than two-thirds of participants (70.3%) were women. The median number of headache days per month was 5 (interquartile range, 5.3). Some of the participants (12.5%) had previously used evidence-based behavioral therapy for migraine. No significant differences in the willingness to pursue behavioral treatment for migraine between the four message framing groups were found. The median for all four types of message frames was 4 (interquartile range, 1; Kruskal-Wallis H, p=0.41). CONCLUSIONS: Findings revealed that message framing was not associated with willingness to seek behavioral therapy for migraine.


Assuntos
Terapia Comportamental , Promoção da Saúde , Transtornos de Enxaqueca/prevenção & controle , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde , Adulto , Terapia Comportamental/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Promoção da Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos
3.
Pain Med ; 20(2): 369-377, 2019 02 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29868895

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Scalable nonpharmacologic treatment options are needed for chronic pain conditions. Migraine is an ideal condition to test smartphone-based mind-body interventions (MBIs) because it is a very prevalent, costly, disabling condition. Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) is a standardized, evidence-based MBI previously adapted for smartphone applications for other conditions. We sought to examine the usability of the RELAXaHEAD application (app), which has a headache diary and PMR capability. METHODS: Using the "Think Aloud" approach, we iteratively beta-tested RELAXaHEAD in people with migraine. Individual interviews were conducted, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Using Grounded Theory, we conducted thematic analysis. Participants also were asked Likert scale questions about satisfaction with the app and the PMR. RESULTS: Twelve subjects participated in the study. The mean duration of the interviews (SD, range) was 36 (11, 19-53) minutes. From the interviews, four main themes emerged. People were most interested in app utility/practicality, user interface, app functionality, and the potential utility of the PMR. Participants reported that the daily diary was easy to use (75%), was relevant for tracking headaches (75%), maintained their interest and attention (75%), and was easy to understand (83%). Ninety-two percent of the participants would be happy to use the app again. Participants reported that PMR maintained their interest and attention (75%) and improved their stress and low mood (75%). CONCLUSIONS: The RELAXaHEAD app may be acceptable and useful to migraine participants. Future studies will examine the use of the RELAXaHEAD app to deliver PMR to people with migraine in a low-cost, scalable manner.


Assuntos
Transtornos de Enxaqueca/terapia , Aplicativos Móveis , Terapia de Relaxamento/métodos , Smartphone , Adulto , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Prontuários Médicos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Terapia de Relaxamento/instrumentação , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...