Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:26:39.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating Migraine Disability: The Headache Impact Test Instrument in Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

William Pryse-Phillips
William Pryse-Phillips*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine (Neurology), Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's NF, Canada
*
William Pryse-Phillips, Professor of Medicine (Neurology), Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s NF, Canada A1B 3V6
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.

Migraine impairs physical, social and emotional functioning but the diagnosis is not always made despite the availability of helpful tools. Poor patient-physician communication is one reason cited for this. It is arguable that if the impact that headaches are having on a person's life can be communicated adequately to the physician, the likelihood of appropriate management will increase. The tools currently employed for assessing headache impact are reviewed briefly and the Headache Impact Test (HIT) and HIT-6 described as validated and reliable measures of the effect that headaches are having on patients. The availability of the standard test on the internet, with feedback provided, indicates that this is a potentially useful tool enabling headache sufferers to realize the extent of the burden of migraine and empowering them to seek appropriate management strategies.

Résumé:

RÉSUMÉ:

La migraine affecte le fonctionnement physique, social et émotif, mais le diagnostic n'est pas toujours fait en dépit de la disponibilité d'outils efficaces. Une des raisons évoquées est une communication médecin-patient déficiente. On peut penser que, si l'impact des céphalées sur la vie d'un patient peut être communiqué adéquatement au médecin, on augmentera les chances d'une prise en charge appropriée. Les outils actuellement utilisés pour évaluer l'impact de la céphalée sont révisés brièvement et le test d'impact de la céphalée (HIT) et le HIT-6 sont décrits comme des mesures validées et fiables pour l'évaluation de l'impact des céphalées chez les patients. La disponibilité sur Internet d'un test standard avec rétroaction indique que c'est un outil potentiellement utile pour faire réaliser aux patients l'ampleur du fardeau de la migraine et les motiver à rechercher des stratégies de gestion appropriées.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 29 , Issue S2: A Peer-Reviewed Supplement to the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , 2002 , pp. S11 - S15
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2002

References

1. Terwindt, GM, Ferrari, MD, Tijhuis, M, et al. The impact of migraine on quality of life in the general population. The GEM study. Neurology 2000;55:624–629.Google Scholar
2. Dowson, A, Jagger, S. The UK migraine patient survey: quality of life and treatment. Curr Med Res Opin 1999;15:241–253.Google Scholar
3. Tulen, JH, Stronks, DL, Bussmann, J, et al. Towards an objective quantitative assessment of daily functioning in migraine: a feasibility study. Pain 2000;86:139–149.Google Scholar
4. Osterhaus, JT, Townsend, RJ, Gandek, B, Ware, JE Jr. Measuring the functional status and well-being of patients with migraine headache. Headache 1994;34(6):337–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Von Korff, M, Stewart, WF, Simon, D, Lipton, RB. Migraine and reduced work performance. Neurology 1998;50:1741–1745.Google Scholar
6. Miller, DW, Martin, BC, Loo, CM. Sumatriptan and lost productivity time; a time series analysis of diary data. Clin Ther 1996;18: 1263–1275.Google Scholar
7. Rasmussen, BK. Epidemiology and socio-economic impact of headache. Cephalalgia 1999;19 (Suppl 25):20–23.Google Scholar
8. Hu, XU, Markson, LE, Lipton, RB, Stewart, WF, Berger, ML. Burden of migraine in the United States: disability and economic costs. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:813–818.Google Scholar
9. Stewart, WF, Lipton, RB, Von Korff, M, Liberman, J. Reliability of an illness severity measure for headache in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Cephalalgia 1998;18:44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Stewart, WF, Lipton, RB. Migraine Headache; epidemiology and health care utilization. Cephalalgia 1993;13 (Suppl 12):41–46.Google Scholar
11. Blau, JN, MacGregor, EA. Migraine consultations. A triangle of viewpoints. Headache 1995;35:104–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. MacGregor, EA. The doctor and the migraine patient; improving compliance. Neurology 1997;48:S16–S20.Google Scholar
13. Carr-Hill, R, Jenkins-Clarke, S, Dixon, P, et al. Do Minutes Count? Consultation lengths in General Practice. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998;3:207–213.Google Scholar
14. Martin, CM, Banwell, CL, Broom, DH, et al. Consultation length and chronic illness care in general practice. Med J Aust 1999;171:77–81.Google Scholar
15. Stewart, WF, Lipton, RB, Simon, D, Liberman, J, Von Korff, M. Validity of an illness severity measure for headache in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain 1999;79:291–301.Google Scholar
16. Stewart, WF. Reliability of the migraine disability assessment score in a population-based sample of headache sufferers. Cephalalgia 1999;19:107–114.Google Scholar
17. Jhingran, P, Osterhaus, JT, Miller, DW, et al. Development and validation of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. Headache 1998;38:295–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Jhingran, P, Davis, SM, LaVange, LM, et al. Migraine specific quality of life questionnaire: Further investigation of the factor structure. Pharmacoeconomics 1998;13:707–717.Google Scholar
19. Jacobson, GP, Ramadan, NM, Norris, L, et al. Headache Disability Inventory: short-term test-retest reliability and spouse perceptions. Headache 1995;35:534–539.Google Scholar
20. de Bruin, AF, de Witte, LP, Stevens, F, Diederiks, JP. Sickness Impact Profile: the state of the art of a generic functional status measure. Soc Sci Med 1992;35:1003–1014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Stewart, WF, Lipton, RB, Whyte, J, et al. An international study to assess reliability of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score. Neurology 1999;53:988–994.Google Scholar
22. Stewart, WF, Lipton, RB, Kolodner, K, Liberman, J, Sawyer, J. Reliability of the migraine disability assessment score in a population-based sample of headache sufferers. Cephalalgia 1999;19:107–114.Google Scholar
23. Holroyd, KA, Malinoski, P, Davis, MK, Lipchik, GL. The three dimensions of headache impact: pain, disability and affective distress. Pain 1999;83:571–578.Google Scholar
24. Ziegler, DK, Paolo, AM. Self-reported disability due to headache: a comparison of clinic patients and controls. Headache 1996;36: 476–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Lipton, RB, Hamelsky, SW, Kolodner, K, Stewart, WF. Migraine, quality of life and depression: a population-based case-control study. Neurology 2001;55:629–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Davies, P. Therapy for Alzheimer’s disease: choosing a target. Clin Neuropharmacol 1991;14 (Suppl 1):S24–S33.Google Scholar
27. Santanello, NC, Polis, AB, Hartmaier, SL, et al. Improvement in migraine-specific quality of life in a clinical trial of rizatriptan. Cephalalgia 1997;17:867–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Ware, J, Kosinski, M, Dahlof, C, et al. Validity of HIT-6, a paper-based short form for measuring headache impact. American Headache Assoc. Annual Meeting. New York, June 2001.Google Scholar
29. Monzon, MJ, Lainez, MJ. Quality of Life in migraine and chronic daily headache patients. Cephalalgia 1998;18(9):638–643.Google Scholar
30. Ware, JE, Bjorner, JB, Kosinski, M. Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: a brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Med Care 2000;38:1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Cella, DF, Chang, CH. A discussion of item response theory and its applications in health status assessment. Med Care 2000;38: 1166–1172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Kosinski, M, Bjorner, JB, Dahlof, C, et al. Development of HIT-6, a paper-based short form for measuring headache impact. American Headache Assoc. Annual Meeting. New York, June 2001.Google Scholar
33. Bayliss, MS, Kosinski, M, Diamond, M, et al. HIT-6 scores discriminate between headache sufferers differing in headache-associated workplace productivity loss. American Headache Assoc. Annual Meeting. New York, June 2001.Google Scholar
34. Garber, WH, Kosinski, M, Dahlof, C, et al. HIT-6 reliably measures the impact of headache. American Headache Assoc. Annual Meeting. New York, June 2001.Google Scholar
35. Ware, JE, Gandek, B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:903–912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed