Cited by 18Migraine and Headache StudiesMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationHealth Policy Implementation Science

Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) – a mixed method feasibility study to inform the design of a randomised controlled trial

Open access
on behalf of the CHESS team, White, Kimberley, Potter, Rachel, Patel, Shilpa, Nichols, Vivien P., Haywood, Kirstie L., Hee, Siew Wan, Mistry, Dipesh +4 more·2019·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Self-management support programmes are effective in a range of chronic conditions however there is limited evidence for their use in the treatment of chronic headaches. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of four key aspects of a planned, future evaluative trial of a new education and self-management intervention for people with chronic headache: 1) recruiting people with chronic headache from primary care; 2) a telephone interview for the classification of chronic headaches; 3) the education and self-management intervention itself; and 4) the most appropriate patient reported outcomes (PROMS). METHODS: Participants were identified and recruited from general practices in the West Midlands of the UK. We developed a nurse-led chronic headache classification interview and assessed agreement with an interview with headache specialists. We developed and tested a group based education and self-management intervention to assess training and delivery receipt using observation, facilitator, and participant feedback. We explored the acceptability and relevance of PROMs using postal questionnaires, interviews and a smartphone app. RESULTS: Fourteen practices took part in the study and participant recruitment equated to 1.0/1000 registered patients. Challenges to recruitment were identified. We did 107 paired headache classification interviews. The level of agreement between nurse and doctor interviews was very good. We piloted the intervention in four groups with 18 participants. Qualitative feedback from participants and facilitators helped refine the intervention including shortening the overall intervention and increasing the facilitator training time. Participants completed 131 baseline questionnaires, measurement data quality, reliability and validity for headache-specific and generic measures was acceptable. CONCLUSION: This study indicated that recruiting people with chronic headache from primary care is feasible but challenging, our headache classification interview is fit for purpose, our study intervention is viable, and that our choice of outcome measures is acceptable to participants in a future randomised controlled trial (RCT). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN79708100. Registered 16th December 2015, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN79708100.

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/s12874-019-0672-5

Cites

34 of 34 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
on behalf of the CHESS team, White, K., Potter, R., Patel, S., Nichols, V. P., Haywood, K. L., Hee, S. W., Mistry, D., Carnes, D., Taylor, S. J. C., Underwood, M., & Matharu, M. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (GB)
Corresponding author
Potter, Rachel
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2019-02-11
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
30-30
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2933589765
Cited by
18
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • ArODES (HES-SO (https://www.hes-so.ch/)) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research (RP-PG-1212-20018)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Migraine and Headache Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
chronic headache, self-management, patient education, feasibility, primary care recruitment, telephone interviews, group intervention, patient-reported outcomes, mobile application, intervention development
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Self-Management, Adult, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Pilot Projects, Prospective Studies, Research Design, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Headache Disorders

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