Burden of migraine related to menses: results from the AMPP study.

BACKGROUND: Studies of the difference between menstrually associated and non-menstrually associated migraine are somewhat controversial. The majority of studies have focused on comparing menstrual to non-menstrual attacks rather than comparing study groups with different migraine diagnoses with respect to menstruation. As there is limited knowledge available on the overall impact and burden of migraine among groups of women with and without menstrually associated migraine our goal was to examine differences between these groups. We hypothesized that there would be greater burden of migraine related to menstruation and headache frequency in a population study across groups of women. METHODS: We analyzed data from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study, a longitudinal, US, population-based study. We included female respondents to the 2009 survey, aged 18 to 60, who met modified ICHD-2 criteria for migraine, were actively menstruating and fit one of three definitions based on the self-reported association of menses and migraine attacks: self-reported predominantly menstrual migraine (MM, attacks that only or predominantly occur at the time of menses), self-reported menstrually-associated migraine (MAM, attacks commonly associated with menses, but that also occur at other times of the month), and self-reported menstrually-unrelated migraine (MUM). These three groups were compared on characteristics and measures of headache impact and burden (Headache Impact Test- 6 item (HIT-6) and Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS). RESULTS: There were 1,697 eligible subjects for this study in the following categories: MM (5.5%), MAM (53.8%), or MUM (40.7%). Women with MM had an older age of migraine onset. Those with predominantly menstrually-related attacks (MM) had fewer headache-days but appeared to be more impaired by attacks. HIT-6 and MIDAS scores were significantly higher for both the MM and MAM groups compared with the MUM groups; however, effects were more robust for MM than MAM. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 60% of women with migraine reported an association between migraine and menses. These women reported greater headache impact and migraine-related burden on functioning than those in whom migraines were not related to menstruation. Women with MM were more impaired by attacks while women with MAM had overall highest burden, likely due to experiencing migraines on additional days.

Electronic Health Record Technology Designed for the Clinical Encounter: MS NeuroShare.

OBJECTIVE: Advances in medical discoveries have bolstered expectations of precise and complete care, but delivering on such a promise for complex, chronic neurologic care delivery requires solving last-mile challenges. We describe the iterative human-centered design and pilot process for multiple sclerosis (MS) NeuroShare, a digital health solution that brings practical information to the point of care so that clinicians and patients with MS can view, discuss, and make informed decisions together. METHODS: We initiated a comprehensive human-centered process to iteratively design, develop, and implement a digital health solution for managing MS in the routine outpatient setting of the nonprofit Sutter Health system in Northern California. The human-centered codesign process included 3 phases: discovery and design, development, and implementation and pilot. Stakeholders included Sutter Health's Research Development and Dissemination team, academic domain experts, neurologists, patients with MS, and an advisory group. RESULTS: MS NeuroShare went live in November 2018. It included a patient- and clinician-facing web application that launches from the electronic health record, visually displays a patient's data relevant to MS, and prompts the clinician to comprehensively evaluate and treat the patient. Both patients and clinicians valued the ability to jointly view patient-generated and other data. Preliminary results suggest that MS NeuroShare promotes patient-clinician communication and more active patient participation in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learned in the design and implementation of MS NeuroShare are broadly applicable to the design and implementation of digital tools aiming to improve the experience of delivering and receiving high-quality care for complex, neurologic conditions across large health systems.

Meaningful use in practice using patient-specific risk in an electronic health record for shared decision making.

Quantitative risk (QR) formulas have been developed for multiple conditions but are not routinely used in clinical practice. Tests were made of the feasibility of an automated clinical care process for using QR in routine primary care. Several modifications were made to the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and it was applied to routine care in three areas: (1) for risk-stratification, (2) patient education about care options, and (3) guidance on optimizing choice of care options. Evidence-based methods were used to convert the smoking status variable from a binary- to a continuous-scale format and to add variables for alcohol use and HbA1c. An automated protocol tested in 2008-2010 was successful for all three applications. At-risk patients (defined according to criteria from the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure [JNC]-7 or the National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults [adult treatment panel/ATP-III]) were automatically identified during routine encounters. Patient-reported data were obtained (n = 1826) by touchscreen questionnaire and automatically used with electronic health record (EHR) data to calculate risks on 1068 patients who had complete data. Patients were risk-stratified. Higher-risk patients viewed an interactive web-based tool and chose options to modify risk factors. Feasibility was successful for use of the FRS in the interactive web tool.

Shared decision making: using health information technology to integrate patient choice into primary care.

Advances in shared decision making (SDM) have not successfully translated to practice. We describe our experience and lessons learned in translating an SDM process for primary care cardiovascular disease management. The SDM process operationalized recognized SDM elements using workflow modifications, a computerized patient questionnaire, an automated risk calculator to identify at-risk patients, a web-based tool for patients to choose interventions, automated feedback on the personalized benefits of choices, and a web-based tool for providers to view patient risk, patient choice, and expert advice. Although medication was typically the intervention resulting in the greatest risk reduction, the majority of patients preferred dietary and other lifestyle changes. Patients generally favored the opportunity to make and communicate choices. However, providers only viewed patient choice data in 20% of the encounters. Translation of the SDM process was successful for patients and the difference between patient choice and optimal risk reduction points to the importance of engaging in an SDM process. Lack of engagement by providers may be due to "alert fatigue" or to the failure of the SDM process to improve efficiency in the office visit.