Search

Background: We have previously shown headache to be highly prevalent among adults in Saudi Arabia. Here we estimate associated symptom burden and impaired participation (impaired use of time, lost productivity and disengagement from social activity), and use these estimates to assess headache-related health-care needs in Saudi Arabia., Methods: A randomised cross-sectional survey included 2,316 adults (18-65 years) from all 13 regions of the country. It used the standardised methodology of the Global Campaign against Headache with a culturally mandated modification: engagement by cellphone using random digit-dialling rather than door-to-door visits. Enquiry used the HARDSHIP questionnaire, with diagnostic questions based on ICHD-3 beta, questions on symptom burden, enquiries into impaired participation using the HALT index and questions about activity yesterday in those reporting headache yesterday (HY). Health-care "need" was defined in terms of likelihood of benefit. We counted all those with headache on ≥ 15 days/month, with migraine on ≥ 3 days/month, or with migraine or TTH and meeting either of two criteria: a) proportion of time in ictal state (pTIS) > 3.3% and intensity ≥ 2 (moderate-severe); b) ≥ 3 lost days from paid work and/or household chores during 3 months., Results: For all headache, mean frequency was 4.3 days/month, mean duration 8.4 h, mean intensity 2.3 (moderate). Mean pTIS was 3.6%. Mean lost days from work were 3.9, from household chores 6.6, from social/leisure activities 2.0. Of participants reporting HY, 37.3% could do less than half their expected activity, 19.8% could do nothing. At population-level (i.e., for every adult), 2.5 workdays (potentially translating into lost GDP), 3.6 household days and 1.3 social/leisure days were lost to headache. According to HY data, mean total impaired participation (not distinguishing between work, household and social/leisure) was 6.8%. A total of 830 individuals (35.8%) fulfilled one or more of our needs assessment criteria., Conclusion: A very high symptom burden is associated with a commensurately high burden of impaired participation. The economic cost appears to be enormous. Over a third of the adult population are revealed to require headache-related health care on the basis of being likely to benefit, demanding highly efficient organization of care., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

In countries where headache services exist at all, their focus is usually on specialist (tertiary) care. This is clinically and economically inappropriate: most headache disorders can effectively and more efficiently (and at lower cost) be treated in educationally supported primary care. At the same time, compartmentalizing divisions between primary, secondary and tertiary care in many health-care systems create multiple inefficiencies, confronting patients attempting to navigate these levels (the "patient journey") with perplexing obstacles.High demand for headache care, estimated here in a needs-assessment exercise, is the biggest of the challenges to reform. It is also the principal reason why reform is necessary.The structured headache services model presented here by experts from all world regions on behalf of the Global Campaign against Headache is the suggested health-care solution to headache. It develops and refines previous proposals, responding to the challenge of high demand by basing headache services in primary care, with two supporting arguments. First, only primary care can deliver headache services equitably to the large numbers of people needing it. Second, with educational supports, they can do so effectively to most of these people. The model calls for vertical integration between care levels (primary, secondary and tertiary), and protection of the more advanced levels for the minority of patients who need them. At the same time, it is amenable to horizontal integration with other care services. It is adaptable according to the broader national or regional health services in which headache services should be embedded.It is, according to evidence and argument presented, an efficient and cost-effective model, but these are claims to be tested in formal economic analyses., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The large geographical gaps in our knowledge of the prevalence and burden of headache disorders include most of Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). Following a nationwide population-based study in Pakistan, we present here a similar study from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Both were conducted as projects within the Global Campaign against Headache The two purposes of this study were to inform national health policy and contribute to global knowledge of headache disorders., Methods: We surveyed Arabic-speaking adults aged 18-65 years in all 13 regions of KSA. While previous Global Campaign studies have engaged participants by calling at randomly selected households, the culture of KSA made this unacceptable. Participants were, instead, contacted by cell-phone (since cell-phone coverage exceeded 100% in KSA), using random-digit dialling. Trained interviewers used a culturally adapted version of the Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability, Social Handicap and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) questionnaire, with diagnostic enquiry based on ICHD-II. We estimated 1-year prevalences of the headache disorders of public-health importance (migraine, tension-type headache [TTH] and probable medication-overuse headache [pMOH]) and examined their associations with demographic variables., Results: A total of 2316 participants (mean age of 32.2 ± 10.7 years; 62.3% male; 37.7% female) were included (participation proportion 86.5%). Gender and age distributions imperfectly matched those of the national population, requiring adjustments for these to prevalence estimates. Observed 1-year prevalence of all headache was 77.2%, reducing to 65.8% when adjusted. For headache types, adjusted 1-year prevalences were migraine 25.0%, TTH 34.1%, pMOH 2.0% and other headache on ≥15 days/month 2.3%. Adjusted 1-day prevalence of any headache was 11.5%. Migraine and pMOH were associated with female gender (ORs: 1.7 and 4.7; p < 0.0001). Migraine was negatively associated with age > 45 years (OR: 0.4; p = 0.0143) while pMOH was most prevalent in those aged 46-55 years (OR: 2.7; p = 0.0415). TTH reportedly became more common with increasing level of education., Conclusion: Prevalences of migraine and TTH in KSA are considerably higher than global averages (which may be underestimated), and not very different from those in Pakistan. There is more pMOH in KSA than in Pakistan, reflecting, probably, its higher-income status and greater urbanisation (facilitating access to medication).

Background: Headache disorders are both common and burdensome but, given the many people affected, provision of health care to all is challenging. Structured headache services based in primary care are the most efficient, equitable and cost-effective solution but place responsibility for managing most patients on health-care providers with limited training in headache care. The development of practical management aids for primary care is therefore a purpose of the Global Campaign against Headache. This manuscript presents an outcome measure, the Headache Under-Response to Treatment (HURT) questionnaire, describing its purpose, development, psychometric evaluation and assessment for clinical utility. The objective was a simple-to-use instrument that would both assess outcome and provide guidance to improving outcome, having utility across the range of headache disorders, across clinical settings and across countries and cultures., Methods: After literature review, an expert consensus group drawn from all six world regions formulated HURT through item development and item reduction using item-response theory. Using the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study's general-population respondent panel, two mailed surveys assessed the psychometric properties of HURT, comparing it with other instruments as external validators. Reliability was assessed in patients in two culturally-contrasting clinical settings: headache specialist centres in Europe (n = 159) and primary-care centres in Saudi Arabia (n = 40). Clinical utility was assessed in similar settings (Europe n = 201; Saudi Arabia n = 342)., Results: The final instrument, an 8-item self-administered questionnaire, addressed headache frequency, disability, medication use and effect, patients' perceptions of headache "control" and their understanding of their diagnoses. Psychometric evaluation revealed a two-factor model (headache frequency, disability and medication use; and medication efficacy and headache control), with scale properties apparently stable across disorders and correlating well and in the expected directions with external validators. The literature review found few instruments linking assessment to clinical advice or suggested actions: HURT appeared to fill this gap. In European specialist care, it showed utility as an outcome measure across headache disorders. In Saudi Arabian primary care, HURT (translated into Arabic) was reliable and responsive to clinical change., Conclusions: With demonstrated validity and clinical utility across disorders, cultures and settings, HURT is available for clinical and research purposes.

The global burden of headache is very large, but knowledge of it is far from complete and needs still to be gathered. Published population-based studies have used variable methodology, which has influenced findings and made comparisons difficult. Among the initiatives of the Global Campaign against Headache to improve and standardize methods in use for cross-sectional studies, the most important is the production of consensus-based methodological guidelines. This report describes the development of detailed principles and recommendations. For this purpose we brought together an expert consensus group to include experience and competence in headache epidemiology and/or epidemiology in general and drawn from all six WHO world regions. The recommendations presented are for anyone, of whatever background, with interests in designing, performing, understanding or assessing studies that measure or describe the burden of headache in populations. While aimed principally at researchers whose main interests are in the field of headache, they should also be useful, at least in parts, to those who are expert in public health or epidemiology and wish to extend their interest into the field of headache disorders. Most of all, these recommendations seek to encourage collaborations between specialists in headache disorders and epidemiologists. The focus is on migraine, tension-type headache and medication-overuse headache, but they are not intended to be exclusive to these. The burdens arising from secondary headaches are, in the majority of cases, more correctly attributed to the underlying disorders. Nevertheless, the principles outlined here are relevant for epidemiological studies on secondary headaches, provided that adequate definitions can be not only given but also applied in questionnaires or other survey instruments.

The global burden of headache is very large, but knowledge of it is far from complete and needs still to be gathered. Published population-based studies have used variable methodology, which has influenced findings and made comparisons difficult. The Global Campaign against Headache is undertaking initiatives to improve and standardize methods in use for cross-sectional studies. One requirement is for a survey instrument with proven cross-cultural validity. This report describes the development of such an instrument. Two of the authors developed the initial version, which was used with adaptations in population-based studies in China, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Zambia and 10 countries in the European Union. The resultant evolution of this instrument was reviewed by an expert consensus group drawn from all world regions. The final output was the Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability, Social Handicap and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) questionnaire, designed for application by trained lay interviewers. HARDSHIP is a modular instrument incorporating demographic enquiry, diagnostic questions based on ICHD-3 beta criteria, and enquiries into each of the following as components of headache-attributed burden: symptom burden; health-care utilization; disability and productive time losses; impact on education, career and earnings; perception of control; interictal burden; overall individual burden; effects on relationships and family dynamics; effects on others, including household partner and children; quality of life; wellbeing; obesity as a comorbidity. HARDSHIP already has demonstrated validity and acceptability in multiple languages and cultures. Modules may be included or not, and others (e.g., on additional comorbidities) added, according to the purpose of the study and resources (especially time) available.

Population-based studies of headache disorders are important. They inform needs assessment and underpin service policy for a set of disorders that are a public-health priority. On the one hand, our knowledge of the global burden of headache is incomplete, with major geographical gaps; on the other, methodological differences and variable quality are notable among published studies of headache prevalence, burden and cost. The purpose here was to start the process of developing standardized and better methodology in these studies. An expert consensus group was assembled to identify the key methodological issues, and areas where studies might fail. Members had competence and practical experience in headache epidemiology or epidemiology in general, and were drawn from all WHO world regions. We reviewed the relevant literature, and supplemented the knowledge gathered from this exercise with experience gained from recent Global Campaign population-based studies, not all yet published. We extracted methodological themes and identified issues within them that were of key importance. We found wide variations in methodology. The themes within which methodological shortcomings had adverse impact on quality were the following: study design; selection and/or definition of population of interest; sampling and bias avoidance; sample size estimation; access to selected subjects (managing and reporting non-participation); case definition (including diagnosis and timeframe); case ascertainment (including diagnostic validation of questionnaires); burden estimation; reporting (methods and results). These are discussed.

Background: To support better headache management in primary care, the Global Campaign against Headache developed an 8-question outcome measure, the Headache Under-Response to Treatment (HURT) questionnaire. HURT was designed by an expert consensus group with patient-input. It assesses the need for and response to treatment, and provides guidance on actions to optimize therapy. It has proven content validity.We aim to evaluate the Arabic version of HURT for clinical utility in primary care in Saudi Arabia., Methods: HURT was translated according to the Global Campaign's translation protocol. We assessed test-retest reliability in consecutive patients of four primary-care centres, who completed HURT at two visits 4-6 weeks apart while receiving usual care. We then provided training in headache management to the GPs practising in these centres, which were randomized in pairs to control (standard care) or intervention (care guided by implementation of HURT). We assessed responsiveness of HURT to clinical change by comparing base-line responses to HURT questions 1-6 with those at follow up. We assessed clinical utility by comparing outcomes between control and intervention pairs after 3 months, using locally-developed 5-point verbal-rating scales: the patient-satisfaction scale (PSS) and doctor-satisfaction scale (DSS)., Results: For test-retest reliability in 40 patients, intra-class correlation coefficients were 0.66-0.78 for questions 1-4 and 0.90-0.93 for questions 5-7 (all P ≤ 0.001). For the dichotomous response to question 8, Kappa coefficient=1 (P<0.0001). Internal consistency was good (Cronbach's alpha=0.74). In 342 patients, HURT signalled clinical improvement over 3 months through statistically significant changes in responses to questions 1-6. PSS scores were higher among those in whom HURT recorded improvement, and also higher among those with less severe headache at baseline. Patients treated with guidance from HURT (n=207) were more satisfied than controls (n=135), but this did not quite reach statistical significance (P=0.06)., Conclusion: The Arabic HURT Questionnaire is reliable and responsive to clinical change in Arabic-speaking headache patients in primary care. HURT showed clinical utility in this first assessment, conducted in parallel with studies elsewhere in other languages, but this needs further study. Other Arabic instruments are not available as standards for comparison.