CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 66Migraine and Headache StudiesTemporomandibular Joint DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Cognitive behavior therapy for comorbid migraine and/or tension-type headache and major depressive disorder: an exploratory randomized controlled trial

Open access
Martin, Paul R., Aiello, Rachele, Gilson, Kathryn, Meadows, Graham, Milgrom, Jeannette, Reece, John·2015·Behaviour Research and Therapy
DOI 10.1016/j.brat.2015.07.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Numerous studies have demonstrated comorbidity between migraine and tension-type headache on the one hand, and depression on the other. Presence of depression is a negative prognostic indicator for behavioral treatment of headaches. Despite the recognised comorbidity, there is a limited research literature evaluating interventions designed for comorbid headaches and depression. Sixty six participants (49 female, 17 male) suffering from migraine and/or tension-type headache and major depressive disorder were randomly allocated to a Routine Primary Care control group or a Cognitive Behavior Therapy group that also received routine primary care. The treatment program involved 12 weekly 50-min sessions administered by clinical psychologists. Participants in the treatment group improved significantly more than participants in the control group from pre-to post-treatment on measures of headaches, depression, anxiety, and quality of life. Improvements achieved with treatment were maintained at four month follow-up. Comorbid anxiety disorders were not a predictor of response to treatment, and the only significant predictor was gender (men improved more than women). The new integrated treatment program appears promising and worthy of further investigation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2015.07.005

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In Martin et al. (2015), from baseline to post-treatment, MBCT had a positive effect on depression severity.

    “From baseline to post-treatment, significant and MBCT has a positive effect on depression severity”

    From The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Chronic Pain Symptoms Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as Martin et al, (2015)

    The Participant characteristics passage reports significant baseline-to-post-treatment reductions in depression severity on both the BDI-II and PHQ-9. However, the intervention was CBT, not MBCT, so the source does not support attributing that effect to MBCT. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Synthesising evidence from 4 trials of a CBT-based intervention, this type of intervention has a positive effect on pain-related and mental health outcomes, particularly pain severity, pain-related efficacy, depression severity, and opioid use, at least for people with either depression or OUD until end-of-treatment.

    “Synthesising evidence from 4 trials included a CBTbased intervention, 20-23 it appears that this type of in­ tervention has a positive effect on pain-related (parti­ cularly pain severity and pain-related efficacy) and MH outcomes (particularly depression severity and opioid use), at least for people with either depression or OUD till end-of-treatment period.”

    From The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Chronic Pain Symptoms Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as [22]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Improved QoL was reported in 5 out of 6 trials.

    “Other tertiary outcomes were examined in 8 out of 11 trials. Improved QoL was reported in 5 out of 6 trials. 21,22,25,32,42 Additional improvements in illness impact, social interactions, 42 as well as interpersonal sensitivity and ambivalence 31 were found, but these outcomes were only reported in 1 RCT.”

    From The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Chronic Pain Symptoms Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as [22]

  • In Martin et al. (2015), men demonstrated a significantly larger reduction in mean daily headaches compared with women (t(16) = 2.30, P = .004, d = 1.21).

    “Men demonstrated a significant larger reduction in mean daily headaches compared women t (16) = 2.30, P = .004, d = 1.21”

    From The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Chronic Pain Symptoms Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as Martin et al, (2015)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder (revision). American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(Suppl), 1-45.
  2. International Headache Society Committee on Clinical Trials in Tension-type Headache. (2000). Members' Handbook. Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
  3. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16, 606-613.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Martin, P. R., Aiello, R., Gilson, K., Meadows, G., Milgrom, J., & Reece, J.
Affiliations
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • Monash Medical Centre (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • ACAP University College (AU)
Corresponding author
Martin, Paul R.
ORCID
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-10
Volume
73
Pages
8-18
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.brat.2015.07.005
OpenAlex
W1834655084
Cited by
66
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5
FWCI
5.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Monash University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Migraine and Headache Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Complementary and Manual Therapy › Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy, migraine, tension-type headache, major depressive disorder, primary care, anxiety disorders, quality of life, predictors of treatment response, gender differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Migraine Disorders, Quality of Life, Comorbidity, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Tension-Type Headache

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