Does primary-care use of the HURT questionnaire aid the reduction of headache burden? Lessons for study design from an evaluation in primary care of the Arabic version

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE Primary Health Care Research and Development Pub Date : 2019-01-01 DOI:10.15761/hpc.1000177
A. Khathaami, Danah Abo AlSamh, M. Jumah, Nasser Alotaibi, S. Kojan, A. Khan, T. Steiner
{"title":"Does primary-care use of the HURT questionnaire aid the reduction of headache burden? Lessons for study design from an evaluation in primary care of the Arabic version","authors":"A. Khathaami, Danah Abo AlSamh, M. Jumah, Nasser Alotaibi, S. Kojan, A. Khan, T. Steiner","doi":"10.15761/hpc.1000177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The Headache Under-Response to Treatment (HURT) questionnaire is a self-administered outcome measure designed to assess and promote effectiveness of headache management in primary care. It links responses indicative of suboptimal treatment to specific clinical actions to improve outcomes. We aimed in this study to test whether integrating HURT into assessment and follow-up in primary care in Saudi Arabia improved headache management. Methods: With IRB approval, primary-care physicians (PCPs) were recruited from two health-care centres in Riyadh. After basic training in headache care, they were randomly assigned to either of two groups: one, with further instruction on its use, incorporating HURT into their management of patients with headache (intervention group), the other applying standard care without HURT (control group). Patients were randomised on presentation to a PCP in one or other group, thereby randomly receiving care directed by HURT or not. The primary outcome measures, estimated using the Headache-Attributed Lost Time (HALT) index, were reductions in lost productivity from paid work and household chores after 3 and 5 months’ follow-up. Results: A total of 28 PCPs participated. The study was stopped early, because of slow recruitment, after enrolment of 171 patients (84 control, 87 intervention) of 420 planned. Baseline characteristics were well matched between the groups. Patients in both groups benefited from the care they received, with no significant difference in the primary endpoint between groups after 5 months (5.2 versus 5.7 days lost; p=0.4). Patients’ understanding of their diagnosis reportedly improved in the intervention group during follow-up. Conclusion: The study failed in its purpose but delivered useful lessons for future study design in a difficult field of enquiry. First, the training we gave all PCPs, in order to balance the treatment groups, may have rendered HURT largely redundant as a management aid intended for non-experts. Second, the study demonstrates again the difficulty of conducting experiments of this sort in primary care, where interest in headache and motivation to conduct headache research are largely lacking. The second is the more intractable problem. *Correspondence to: TJ Steiner, Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, E-mail: t.steiner@imperial.ac.uk","PeriodicalId":48703,"journal":{"name":"Primary Health Care Research and Development","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary Health Care Research and Development","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15761/hpc.1000177","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The Headache Under-Response to Treatment (HURT) questionnaire is a self-administered outcome measure designed to assess and promote effectiveness of headache management in primary care. It links responses indicative of suboptimal treatment to specific clinical actions to improve outcomes. We aimed in this study to test whether integrating HURT into assessment and follow-up in primary care in Saudi Arabia improved headache management. Methods: With IRB approval, primary-care physicians (PCPs) were recruited from two health-care centres in Riyadh. After basic training in headache care, they were randomly assigned to either of two groups: one, with further instruction on its use, incorporating HURT into their management of patients with headache (intervention group), the other applying standard care without HURT (control group). Patients were randomised on presentation to a PCP in one or other group, thereby randomly receiving care directed by HURT or not. The primary outcome measures, estimated using the Headache-Attributed Lost Time (HALT) index, were reductions in lost productivity from paid work and household chores after 3 and 5 months’ follow-up. Results: A total of 28 PCPs participated. The study was stopped early, because of slow recruitment, after enrolment of 171 patients (84 control, 87 intervention) of 420 planned. Baseline characteristics were well matched between the groups. Patients in both groups benefited from the care they received, with no significant difference in the primary endpoint between groups after 5 months (5.2 versus 5.7 days lost; p=0.4). Patients’ understanding of their diagnosis reportedly improved in the intervention group during follow-up. Conclusion: The study failed in its purpose but delivered useful lessons for future study design in a difficult field of enquiry. First, the training we gave all PCPs, in order to balance the treatment groups, may have rendered HURT largely redundant as a management aid intended for non-experts. Second, the study demonstrates again the difficulty of conducting experiments of this sort in primary care, where interest in headache and motivation to conduct headache research are largely lacking. The second is the more intractable problem. *Correspondence to: TJ Steiner, Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, E-mail: t.steiner@imperial.ac.uk
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
初级保健使用HURT问卷有助于减轻头痛负担吗?阿拉伯文版初级保健评估对研究设计的启示
背景:头痛治疗反应不足(HURT)问卷是一项自我管理的结果测量,旨在评估和促进初级保健中头痛管理的有效性。它将指示次优治疗的反应与特定的临床行动联系起来,以改善结果。在本研究中,我们的目的是检验将HURT纳入沙特阿拉伯初级保健的评估和随访是否能改善头痛管理。方法:经IRB批准,从利雅得的两个卫生保健中心招募初级保健医生(pcp)。在接受头痛护理的基本培训后,他们被随机分配到两组中的任意一组:一组接受进一步的使用指导,将HURT纳入他们对头痛患者的管理(干预组),另一组使用没有HURT的标准治疗(对照组)。患者被随机分配到一组或另一组的PCP,从而随机接受由HURT指导的护理。使用头痛导致的损失时间(HALT)指数估算的主要结果指标是在随访3个月和5个月后,因有偿工作和家务劳动而损失的生产力的减少。结果:共有28个pcp参与。在计划纳入420例患者中的171例(对照组84例,干预组87例)后,由于招募缓慢,研究提前终止。两组间基线特征匹配良好。两组患者均受益于他们所接受的治疗,5个月后两组间的主要终点无显著差异(损失5.2天和5.7天;p = 0.4)。据报道,在随访期间,干预组患者对其诊断的理解有所改善。结论:该研究未能达到其目的,但在一个困难的调查领域为未来的研究设计提供了有益的经验教训。首先,为了平衡治疗组,我们对所有pcp进行了培训,这可能会使HURT在很大程度上成为多余的非专家管理援助。其次,该研究再次证明了在初级保健中进行此类实验的困难,因为初级保健对头痛的兴趣和进行头痛研究的动机在很大程度上缺乏。第二个问题更为棘手。*通讯:TJ Steiner,挪威特隆赫姆NTNU挪威科技大学神经医学和运动科学系,E-mail: t.steiner@imperial.ac.uk
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
119
审稿时长
33 weeks
期刊介绍: Primary Health Care Research & Development is aimed specifically at both researchers and practitioners in primary health care, bridging the gap between the two areas. It provides a forum for the publication of international, interdisciplinary research and development in primary health care. It is essential reading for all involved in primary care: nurse practitioners, GPs and health service managers; professional and local groups in community health; researchers and academics; purchasers of primary health care services; allied health practitioners in secondary services and health-related consumer groups.
期刊最新文献
Development of Diet Score for Identifying the Relationship between Diet Patterns and Dietary Guidelines in Singapore Near-patient testing of blood cell counts using HemoScreen™ point of care instrument in a primary care setting COVID, the Emperor's New Clothes, and the Return of Tyranny Evans syndrome in an asymptomatic patient with COVID-19: Case report and review of the literature Ethical Issues in Family Violence Studies in Maternal and Child Health Settings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1