Cited by 73Migraine and Headache StudiesTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

Migraine education improves quality of life in a primary care setting

Open access
Smith, Timothy R., Nicholson, Robert A., Banks, James W.·2010·Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Mercy Migraine Management Program (MMMP), an educational program for physicians and patients. The primary outcome was change in headache days from baseline at 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were changes in migraine-related disability and quality of life, worry about headaches, self-efficacy for managing migraines, emergency room (ER) visits for headache, and satisfaction with headache care. BACKGROUND: Despite progress in the understanding of the pathophysiology of migraine and development of effective therapeutic agents, many practitioners and patients continue to lack the knowledge and skills to effectively manage migraine. Educational efforts have been helpful in improving the quality of care and quality of life for migraine sufferers. However, little work has been performed to evaluate these changes over a longer period of time. Also, there is a paucity of published research evaluating the influence of education about migraine management on cognitive and emotional factors (for example, self-efficacy for managing headaches, worry about headaches). METHODS: In this open-label, prospective study, 284 individuals with migraine (92% female, mean age = 41.6) participated in the MMMP, an educational and skills-based program. Of the 284 who participated in the program, 228 (80%) provided data about their headache frequency, headache-related disability (as measured by the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), migraine-specific quality of life (MSQ), worry about headaches, self-efficacy for managing headaches, ER visits for headaches, and satisfaction with care at 4 time points over 12 months (baseline, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months). RESULTS: Overall, 46% (106) of subjects reported a 50% or greater reduction in headache frequency. Over 12 months, patients reported fewer headaches and improvement on the HIT-6 and MSQ (all P < .001). The improvement in headache impact and quality of life was greater among those who had more worry about their headaches at baseline. There were also significant improvements in "worry about headaches,""self-efficacy for managing headaches," and "satisfaction with headache care." CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate that patients participating in the MMMP reported improvements in their headache frequency as well as the cognitive and emotional aspects of headache management. This program was especially helpful among those with high amounts of worry about their headaches at the beginning of the program. The findings from this study are impetus for further research that will more clearly evaluate the effects of education and skill development on headache characteristics and the emotional and cognitive factors that influence headache.

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 · 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2010.01618.x

Cites

53 of 53 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, T. R., Nicholson, R. A., & Banks, J. W.
Affiliations
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Venue
Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-04
Volume
50
Issue
4
Pages
600-612
ISSN
  • 0017-8748 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-4610
OpenAlex
W1999061897
Cited by
73
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Headache The Journal of Head and Face Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k23ns048288-05)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K23-NS-048288)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Migraine and Headache Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
migraine, headache frequency, migraine disability, migraine-specific quality of life, self-efficacy, emergency department visits, patient satisfaction, physician training, primary care, HIT-6, long-term outcomes, skills-based intervention, cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
Adult, Analgesics, Anxiety, Education, Medical, Continuing, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Migraine Disorders, Patient Education as Topic, Physicians, Family, Drug Prescriptions, Prospective Studies, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Quality of Life, Self Care, Teaching, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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