Search

Background Neuroscience education therapy (NET) has been successfully used for numerous overlapping pain conditions, but few studies have investigated NET for migraine. Objective We sought to 1) review the literature on NET used for the treatment of various pain conditions to assess how NET has been studied thus far and 2) recommend considerations for future research of NET for the treatment of migraine. Design/Methods Following the PRISMA guideline for scoping reviews, co-author (TR), a medical librarian, searched the MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Embase, and Cochrane Central Clinical Trials Registry databases for peer-reviewed articles describing NET to treat migraine and other chronic pain conditions. Each citation was reviewed by two trained independent reviewers. Conflicts were resolved through consensus. Results Overall, a NET curriculum consists of the following topics: pain does not equate to injury, pain is generated in the brain, perception, genetics, reward systems, fear, brain plasticity, and placebo/nocebo effects. Delivered through individual, group, or a combination of individual and group sessions, NET treatments often incorporate exercise programs and/or components of other evidence-based behavioral treatments. NET has significantly reduced catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, pain intensity, and disability in overlapping pain conditions. In migraine-specific studies, when implemented together with traditional pharmacological treatments, NET has emerged as a promising therapy by reducing migraine days, pain intensity and duration, and acute medication intake. Conclusion NET is an established treatment for pain conditions, and future research should focus on refining NET for migraine, examining delivery modality, dosage, components of other behavioral therapies to integrate, and migraine-specific NET curricula.

Despite increased neuroscience interest at the undergraduate level, a significant shortage of neurologists in the United States exists. To better understand how to generate more interest in neurology, specifically at the undergraduate level, we conducted an anonymous cross-sectional online survey comprising 1,085 undergraduates in either neuroscience courses or majoring/minoring in neuroscience from across the United States to better understand their clinical neurology experiences and perspectives. The survey quantitatively and qualitatively assessed students' clinical neurology exposure inside and outside of the classroom, research experiences, and career goals. Students were from a broad spectrum of undergraduate institutions (public research university [40.8%], liberal arts college [29.7%], and private research university [29.0%]). Most students (89.9%) were looking to pursue graduate studies; 56.9% reported wanting to be a physician, and 17.8% expressed interest in obtaining an MD/PhD. Of importance, students reported first exposure to neuroscience at age 16 years but felt that they could be exposed to neuroscience as early as 13 years. Half (50.5%) decided to major in neuroscience before college, and a quarter (25.6%) decided to major in their first year of college. Despite high interest in clinical neurology exposure, less than one-third of students had spoken with or shadowed a neurologist, and only 13.6% had interacted with clinical neurology populations. Only 20.8% of students felt volunteer and internship opportunities were sufficiently available. Qualitative results include student perspectives from those who did and did not work with a neurologist, describing how they were or were not able to obtain such opportunities. We discuss translating the survey findings into actionable results with opportunities to target the undergraduate neuroscience interest to improve the neurology pipeline. We describe existing programs that could be integrated into everyday neurology practices and new approaches to learning and training to help leverage the significant undergraduate neuroscience interest. We also raise questions for further research, including exploring (1) how students learn of neurologic conditions/expand their knowledge about additional neurologic conditions, (2) whether qualitative investigation of the experiences of neuroscience undergraduates at specific institutions might provide an additional insight, and (3) systems to maintain interest in neuroscience/neurology as students enter medical school.

Background Patients with headache often seek urgent medical care to treat pain and associated symptoms that do not respond to therapeutic options at home. Urgent Cares (UCs) may be suitable for the evaluation and treatment of such patients but there is little data on how headache is evaluated in UC settings and what types of treatments are available. We conducted a study to evaluate the types of care available for patients with headache presenting to UCs. Design Cross-Sectional. Methods Headache specialists across the United States contacted UCs to collect data on a questionnaire. Questions asked about UC staffing (e.g. number and backgrounds of staff, hours of operation), average length of UC visits for headache, treatments and tests available for patients presenting with headache, and disposition including to the ED. Results Data from 10 UC programs comprised of 61 individual UC sites revealed: The vast majority (8/10; 80%) had diagnostic testing onsite for headache evaluation. A small majority (6/10; 60%) had the American Headache Society recommended intravenous medications for acute migraine available. Half (5/10) had a headache protocol in place. The majority (6/10; 60%) had no follow up policy after UC discharge. Conclusions UCs have the potential to provide expedited care for patients presenting for evaluation and treatment of headache. However, considerable variability exists amongst UCs in their abilities to manage headaches. This study reveals many opportunities for future research including the development of protocols and professional partnerships to help guide the evaluation, triage, and treatment of patients with headache in UC settings.