Cited by 58Migraine and Headache StudiesDigital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Electronic behavioral interventions for headache: a systematic review

Open access
Minen, Mia Tova, Torous, John, Raynowska, Jenelle, Piazza, Allison, Grudzen, Corita, Powers, Scott, Lipton, Richard, Sevick, Mary Ann·2016·The Journal of Headache and Pain

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in using electronic behavioral interventions as well as mobile technologies such as smartphones for improving the care of chronic disabling diseases such as migraines. However, less is known about the current clinical evidence for the feasibility and effectiveness of such behavioral interventions. OBJECTIVE: To review the published literature of behavioral interventions for primary headache disorders delivered by electronic means suitable for use outside of the clinician's office. METHODS: An electronic database search of PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase was conducted through December 11, 2015. All eligible studies were systematically reviewed to examine the modality in which treatment was delivered (computer, smartphone, watch and other), types of behavioral intervention delivered (cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT], biofeedback, relaxation, other), the headache type being treated, duration of treatment, adherence, and outcomes obtained by the trials to examine the overall feasibility of electronic behavioral interventions for headache. RESULTS: Our search produced 291 results from which 23 eligible articles were identified. Fourteen studies used the internet via the computer, 2 used Personal Digital Assistants, 2 used CD ROM and 5 used other types of devices. None used smartphones or wearable devices. Four were pilot studies (N ≤ 10) which assessed feasibility. For the behavioral intervention, CBT was used in 11 (48 %) of the studies, relaxation was used in 8 (35 %) of the studies, and biofeedback was used in 5 (22 %) of the studies. The majority of studies (14/23, 61 %) used more than one type of behavioral modality. The duration of therapy ranged from 4-8 weeks for CBT with a mean of 5.9 weeks. The duration of other behavioral interventions ranged from 4 days to 60 months. Outcomes measured varied widely across the individual studies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the move toward individualized medicine and mHealth, the current literature shows that most studies using electronic behavioral intervention for the treatment of headache did not use mobile devices. The studies examining mobile devices showed that the behavioral interventions that employed them were acceptable to patients. Data are limited on the dose required, long term efficacy, and issues related to the security and privacy of this health data. This study was registered at the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42015032284) (Prospero, 2015).

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 · 10.1186/s10194-016-0608-y

Cites

58 of 58 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

2 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [41]Smith A. Chapter one: A portrait of smartphone ownership. Pew Research Center Web site. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/chapter-one-a-portrait-of-smartphone-ownership/. Published April 1, 2015. Updated 2015. Accessed 1/8, 2016.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Minen, M. T., Torous, J., Raynowska, J., Piazza, A., Grudzen, C., Powers, S., Lipton, R., & Sevick, M. A.
Affiliations
  • NYU Langone Health (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • New York University (US)
  • Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Minen, Mia Tova
Venue
The Journal of Headache and Pain
Published
2016-05-10
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
51-51
ISSN
  • 1129-2369 (ISSN-L)
  • 1129-2377
OpenAlex
W2345466571
Cited by
58
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4
FWCI
0.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Headache and Pain (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (NIH-K24-NR01226.)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Migraine and Headache Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
headache, migraine, primary headache, cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, relaxation training, online therapy, feasibility, mobile health, wearable devices, smartphone-based intervention, medication adherence
MeSH terms
Adult, Feasibility Studies, Female, Headache, Humans, Male, Prospective Studies, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Internet, Computers, Handheld

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