Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T06:17:46.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multidisciplinary Treatment for Headache in the Canadian Healthcare Setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Khara M. Sauro  and
Werner J. Becker
Khara M. Sauro
Affiliation:
The Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary & Calgary Health Region, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Werner J. Becker
Affiliation:
The Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary & Calgary Health Region, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background/Objectives:

Multidisciplinary treatment programs are seen as an effective way to treat patients with chronic illness. The purpose of this study was to describe a multidisciplinary headache program which was developed in the Canadian public healthcare setting, and to report on patient perceptions of the program and patient treatment outcomes.

Methods:

The Calgary Headache Assessment and Management Program (CHAMP) was developed with initial funding from Alberta Health, and continued with function from the Calgary Health Region. Patient perceptions of the program were obtained with questionnaires. Outcome measures for a cohort of patients who completed the Self-Management Workshop were obtained using standard headache related disability measures.

Results:

Patient perceptions of the education session, the Lifestyle Assessment, and the Self-Management Workshop were very positive. Headache Disability Inventory scores fell from 56.2 to 46.3 from baseline to three months post Self-Management Workshop (p<.001). Corresponding scores for the HIT-6 were 63.6 and 58.2 (p <.001).

Conclusions:

Multidisciplinary headache treatment programs can be developed in the Canadian public healthcare system. The program described here was well accepted by many patients and perceived to be useful by them. Headache related disability as measured by standard measures was significantly reduced after participation in the program.

Résumé:

RÉSUMÉ:<span class='italic'><span class='bold'>Contexte/Objectifs</span></span>:

On considère que les programmes multidisciplinaires de traitement sont une façon efficace de traiter les patients atteints de maladies chroniques. Le but de cette étude était de décrire un programme multidisciplinaire de traitement de la céphalée qui a été développé dans le cadre d'un système publique de soins de santé au Canada et de rapporter la perception qu'en ont les patients ainsi que les résultats du traitement.

<span class='italic'><span class='bold'>Méthodes</span></span>:

Le Calgary Headache Assessment and Management Program, qui a été développé initialement avec le soutien financier de l'Alberta Health, a continué à fonctionner grâce au soutien de la Calgary Health Region. Des questionnaires ont été utilisés pour connaîe l'opinion des patients sur le programme. La mesure des résultats chez une cohorte de patients qui avaient complété l'atelier d'autogesion a été obtenue au moyen de mesures standardisées de l'invalidité reliée à la céphalée.

<span class='italic'><span class='bold'>Résultats</span></span>:

L'opinion des patients concernant les sessions d'information, l'évaluation du mode de vie et l'atelier d'autogestion était très positive. Les scores du Headache Disability Inventory ont baissé de 56,2 initialement à 46,3 trois mois après l'atelier d'autogestion (p > 0,001). Les scores correspondants pour le HIT-6 étaient de 63,6 et de 58,2 respectivement (p > 0,001).

<span class='italic'><span class='bold'>Conclusions</span></span>:

Il est possible de développer des programmes multidisciplinaires de traitement de la céphalée dans le cadre du système publique de santé au Canada. Le programme que nous décrivons ici a été bien accepté par plusieurs patients et ils sont d'avis qu'il leur a été utile. L'invalidité reliée à la céphalée, telle que mesurée par des outils standards, a été significativement diminuée suite à la participation au programme.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 46 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2008

References

1. Lawrence, D. From Chaos to Care. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing; 2002.Google Scholar
2. Buchner, M, Zahlten-Hinguranage, A, Schiltenwolf, M, Neubauer, E. Therapy outcome after multidisciplinary treatment for chronic neck and chronic low back pain: a prospective clinical study in 365 patients. Scand J Rheumatol. 2006; 35(5):363–7.Google Scholar
3. Flor, H, Fydrich, T, Turk, DC. Efficacy of multidisciplinary pain treatment centers: a meta-analytic review. Pain. 1992; 49(2): 221–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Guzman, J, Esmail, R, Karjalainen, K, Malmivaara, A, Irvin, E, Bombardier, C. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review. BMJ. 2001; 322(7301):1511–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Scharff, L, Marcus, DA. Interdisciplinary outpatient group treatment of intractable headache. Headache. 1994; 34(2):73–8.Google Scholar
6. Lemstra, M, Stewart, B, Olszynski, WP. Effectiveness of multidisciplinary intervention in the treatment of migraine: a randomized clinical trial. Headache. 2002; 42(9):845–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Penzien, DB, Rains, JC, Lipchik, GL, Creer, TL. Behavioral interventions for tension-type headache: overview of current therapies and recommendation for a self-management model for chronic headache. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2004; 8(6):489–99.Google Scholar
8. Campbell, JK. Diagnosis and treatment of cluster headache. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1993; 8(3):155–64.Google Scholar
9. Melzack, R, Wall, PD. Pain mechanisms: a new theory. Science. 1965; 150(699):971–9.Google Scholar
10. Jacobson, GP, Ramadan, NM, Aggarwal, SK, Newman, CW. The Henry Ford Hospital headache disability inventory (HDI). Neurology. 1994; 44(5):837–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Kosinski, M, Bayliss, MS, Bjorner, JB, Ware, JE Jr., Garber, WH, Batenhorst, A, et al. A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: the HIT-6. Qual Life Res. 2003; 12(8):963–74.Google Scholar
12. Radloff, LS. The CES-D Scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Measurement. 1977; 1: 385.Google Scholar
13. The International Classification of Headache Disorders: 2nd ed. Cephalalgia. 2004; 24 Suppl 1: 9-160.Google Scholar
14. Silberstein, SD, Lipton, RB, Solomon, S, Mathew, NT. Classification of daily and near-daily headaches: proposed revisions to the IHS criteria. Headache. 1994; 34: 1–7.Google Scholar
15. Fernandez, E, Sheffield, J. Relative contributions of life events versus daily hassles to the frequency and intensity of headaches. Headache. 1996; 36(10):595–602.Google Scholar
16. Andrasik, F. Behavioral treatment of migraine: current status and future directions. Expert Rev Neurother. 2004; 4(3):403–13.Google Scholar
17. Bakal, DA, Demjen, S, Kaganov, JA. Cognitive behavioral treatment of chronic headache. Headache. 1981; 21(3):81–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Holroyd, KA, Nash, JM, Pingel, JD, Cordingley, GE, Jerome, A. A comparison of pharmacological (amitriptyline HCL) and nonpharmacological (cognitive-behavioral) therapies for chronic tension headaches. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991; 59(3):387–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Nash, JM, Park, ER, Walker, BB, Gordon, N, Nicholson, RA. Cognitive-behavioral group treatment for disabling headache. Pain Med. 2004; 5(2):178–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Holroyd, KA, O’Donnell, FJ, Stensland, M, Lipchik, GL, Cordingley, GE, Carlson, BW. Management of chronic tension-type headache with tricyclic antidepressant medication, stress management therapy, and their combination: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001; 285(17):2208–15.Google Scholar
21. Lorig, KR, Sobel, DS, Ritter, PL, Laurent, D, Hobbs, M. Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease. Eff Clin Pract. 2001; 4(6):256–62.Google Scholar
22. Harpole, LH, Samsa, GP, Jurgelski, AE, Shipley, JL, Bernstein, A, Matchar, DB. Headache management program improves outcome for chronic headache. Headache. 2003; 43(7):715–24.Google Scholar
23. Walker, BB, Nash, JM. Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary outpatient headache management program. Med Health RI. 2002; 85(9):269–72.Google Scholar
24. Rothrock, JF, Parada, VA, Sims, C, Key, K, Walters, NS, Zweifler, RM. The impact of intensive patient education on clinical outcome in a clinic-based migraine population. Headache. 2006; 46(5):72–31.Google Scholar
25. Magnusson, JE, Riess, CM, Becker, WJ. Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary treatment program for chronic daily headache. Can J Neurol Sci. 2004; 31(1):72–9.Google Scholar
26. Blumenfeld, A, Tischio, M. Center of excellence for headache care: group model at Kaiser Permanente. Headache. 2003; 43(5): 431–40.Google Scholar