Cited by 76Migraine and Headache StudiesMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationTemporomandibular Joint Disorders

Dynamics of changes in self-efficacy and locus of control expectancies in the behavioral and drug treatment of severe migraine

Seng, Elizabeth K., Holroyd, Kenneth A.·2010·Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Modification of expectancies (headache self-efficacy and headache locus of control) is thought to be central to the success of psychological treatments for migraine. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to examine expectancy changes with various combinations of Behavioral Migraine Management and migraine drug therapies. METHODS: Frequent migraine sufferers who failed to respond to 5 weeks of optimized acute migraine drug therapy were randomized to a 2 (Behavioral Migraine Management+, Behavioral Migraine Management-) × 2 (β-blocker, placebo) treatment design. RESULTS: Mixed models for repeated measures analyses (N = 176) revealed large increases in headache self-efficacy and internal headache locus of control and large decreases in chance headache locus of control with Behavioral Migraine Management+ that were maintained over a 12-month evaluation period. Chance headache locus of control and socioeconomic status moderated changes in headache self-efficacy with Behavioral Migraine Management+. CONCLUSIONS: The "deficiency" hypothesis best explained how patient characteristics influenced changes in of headache self-efficacy with Behavioral Migraine Management.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12160-010-9223-3

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seng, E. K., & Holroyd, K. A.
Affiliations
Ohio University (US)
Corresponding author
Seng, Elizabeth K.
Venue
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2010-09-02
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
235-247
ISSN
  • 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
  • 0883-6612
  • 1532-4796
OpenAlex
W2132185858
Cited by
76
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS32374, R01NS032374)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Migraine and Headache Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Complementary and Manual Therapy › Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
Keywords
migraine, locus of control, beta-blockers, treatment expectancy, socioeconomic status
MeSH terms
Adrenergic beta-Antagonists, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Internal-External Control, Middle Aged, Migraine Disorders, Propranolol, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Chi-Square Distribution, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Self Efficacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review