Search

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).)

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.

We evaluated 1,400 randomly selected Saudi children in grades 1 through 9 to determine the prevalence of migraine and tension-type headache. Of the 1400 distributed questionnaires, 1,181 (84.3%) were completed properly and so served as the basis for analysis. There were 573 boys (48.5%) and 608 girls (51.5%). Ages ranged from 6 to 18 years. Five hundred eighty-eight children (49.8%; 272 boys and 316 girls) had recurrent headache episodes not related to febrile illness in the year preceding the survey. Eighty-four children (7.1%; 37 boys and 47 girls) had recurrent episodes of migraine, and 504 (42.7%; 232 boys and 272 girls) had recurrent episodes of nonmigraine headache. For both boys and girls, the age-specific prevalence rate for nonmigraine headache rose steadily from around 15% at aged 6 to 7 years to nearly 60% after aged 15. For migraine, there was a sharp increase in the prevalence rate (from around 2% to around 9%) at aged 10 to 11, also in both boys and girls. Age-adjusted prevalence for migraine between aged 6 and 15 was 6.2%. Due to the relatively poor sensitivity of some of the IHS criteria in children, this figure may underestimate the true magnitude of migraine in the population studied.

This study was designed to estimate the frequency and characteristics of headaches occurring on the first day of Ramadan (Moslems' fasting month) and to determine possible causes. One hundred fifty copies of a specially designed questionnaire were distributed on the second day of fasting to a random sample of hospital staff. Completed questionnaires were obtained from 116 subjects (77%). Headaches were reported by 37 (41%) of the 91 persons who had fasted as compared to 2 (8%) of those 25 who did not fast (P = .002). The headache was of tension type in 78% of the cases. Headache frequency increased with the duration of fasting and affected mainly those prone to have headaches, more particularly of the tension type and the most important exogenous-associated factor was caffeine withdrawal. Other factors such as lack of sleep, hypoglycemia, and dehydration may have been contributory in a small number of cases. A progressive reduction of caffeine consumption in the weeks preceding the month of Ramadan and a cup of strong coffee just before the start of the fast may prevent the occurrence of first-of-Ramadan headache.