Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Most adults with migraine never consult their family doctor or receive a formal diagnosis. It is often these people that turn to the internet for healthcare information. Here we describe the development and testing of an on-line version of a previously validated telephone migraine classification interview. Methods We co-produced and tested the tool with people with migraine, clinicians, a web-design company and the National Migraine Centre, a UK based charity. We started with an online stakeholder meeting to understand what resources people wanted and any potential obstacles and facilitators to successful implementation. At a consensus meeting we used nominal group technique to gain consensus on the key questions to include. We used a ‘Think Aloud technique’ with people with migraine to explore the performance and acceptability of the questions in the new tool. To validate it, we asked people with headache disorders, including migraine, to complete the online tool before a doctor specialising in headache diagnosed their headache type. Level of agreement was measured between the outcome of the new migraine tool and the diagnosis by the doctor for 100 participants. Results At the consensus meeting it was agreed that the questions for the new tool should be clear and easy to understand and distinguish between migraine, tension type headache, other primary headache disorders and medication overuse headache. For our initial validation exercise the level of agreement between the migraine quiz and the doctor diagnosis for 100 participants was 78% agreement. We made some adjustments to the wording and logic of the tool and repeated the validation exercise with 130 participants; the level of agreement was 80%. Conclusions Despite a careful development process our on-line tool did not perform to an adequate standard. There is a risk that misclassification could lead to people receiving inappropriate treatment. Any on-line classification tool for multiple headache disorders should be adequately validated before widespread use to avoid risk of iatrogenic harm. Clinical trial number Not applicable.

Background The Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and the Chronic Headache Questionnaire (CH-QLQ) measure headache-related quality of life but are not preference-based and therefore cannot be used to generate health utilities for cost-effectiveness analyses. There are currently no established algorithms for mapping between the HIT-6 or CH-QLQ and preference-based health-related quality-of-life measures for chronic headache population. Methods We developed algorithms for generating EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utilities from the HIT-6 and the CHQLQ using both direct and response mapping approaches. A multi-stage model selection process was used to assess the predictive accuracy of the models. The estimated mapping algorithms were derived to generate UK tariffs and was validated using the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) trial dataset. Results Several models were developed that reasonably accurately predict health utilities in this context. The best performing model for predicting EQ-5D-5L utility scores from the HIT-6 scores was a Censored Least Absolute Deviations (CLAD) (1) model that only included the HIT-6 score as the covariate (mean squared error (MSE) 0.0550). The selected model for CH-QLQ to EQ-5D-5L was the CLAD (3) model that included CH-QLQ summary scores, age, and gender, squared terms and interaction terms as covariates (MSE 0.0583). The best performing model for predicting SF-6D utility scores from the HIT-6 scores was the CLAD (2) model that included the HIT-6 score and age and gender as covariates (MSE 0.0102). The selected model for CH-QLQ to SF-6D was the OLS (2) model that included CH-QLQ summary scores, age, and gender as covariates (MSE 0.0086). Conclusion The developed algorithms enable the estimation of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utilities from two headache-specific questionnaires where preference-based health-related quality of life data are missing. However, further work is needed to help define the best approach to measuring health utilities in headache studies.

ObjectiveTypically, migraine prevention trials focus on reducing migraine days. This narrow focus may not capture all that is important to people with migraine. Inconsistency in outcome selection across trials limits the potential for data pooling and evidence synthesis. In response, we describe the development of core outcome set for migraine (COSMIG).DesignA two-stage approach sought to achieve international, multistakeholder consensus on both the core domain set and core measurement set. Following construction of a comprehensive list of outcomes, expert panellists (patients, healthcare professionals and researchers) completed a three-round electronic-Delphi study to support a reduction and prioritisation of core domains and outcomes. Participants in a consensus meeting finalised the core domains and methods of assessment. All stages were overseen by an international core team, including patient research partners.ResultsThere was a good representation of patients (episodic migraine (n=34) and chronic migraine (n=42)) and healthcare professionals (n=33) with high response and retention rates. The initial list of domains and outcomes was reduced from >50 to 7 core domains for consideration in the consensus meeting, during which a 2-domain core outcome set was agreed.ConclusionInternational and multistakeholder consensus emerged to describe a two-domain core outcome set for reporting research on preventive interventions for chronic and episodic migraine: migraine-specific pain and migraine-specific quality of life. Intensity of migraine pain assessed with an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale and the frequency as the number of headache/migraine days over a specified time period. Migraine-specific quality of life assessed using the Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire.

IntroductionRecurrent patellar dislocation is a debilitating musculoskeletal condition, affecting mainly adolescents and adults under the age of 30. It can persist for many decades, causing pain and cartilage and soft-tissue damage, potentially leading to osteoarthritis. Recurrent patellar dislocation can be managed with physiotherapy or surgery. However, it is not known which treatment is most effective.Methods and analysisRecurrent Patellar Dislocation: Personalised Therapy or Operative Treatment (REPPORT) is a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, superiority, randomised controlled trial. It will compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an initial management strategy of personalised, phased and progressive rehabilitation, termed personalised knee therapy versus surgery for recurrent patellar dislocation.The trial’s target sample size is 276 participants who will be recruited from approximately 20 sites across the UK. Participants will be randomly allocated to the two treatment groups via a central computer-based minimisation system. Treatment allocation will be in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by age, presence of patella alta and recruitment site.The primary outcome is participant-reported function using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome 4-domain score at 18 months post randomisation. Health economic evaluation will be conducted from a healthcare system and personal social services perspective. Secondary outcome data including patellar instability, health utility, work/education status, satisfaction with social roles and treatment, health resource use and adverse events will be collected at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis and reported in-line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement.Ethics and disseminationThe trial was approved by the East Midlands—Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee on 30 March 2023.Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, presentations at national and international conferences, in lay summaries, and using the REPPORT website and social media channels.Trial registration numberISRCTN17972668.

IntroductionPain and disability after meniscectomy can be a substantial lifelong problem. There are few treatment options, especially for young people. Non-surgical management (rehabilitation) is an option but increasingly surgeons are performing meniscal allograft transplants (MATs) for these individuals. However, this is still an uncommon procedure, and availability and usage of MAT vary widely both in the UK and internationally. It is not known which treatment option is the most effective and cost-effective.Methods and analysisThe Meniscal Transplant surgery or Optimised Rehabilitation trial is an international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The aim is to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of MAT versus an optimised package of individualised, progressive, rehabilitation that we have called personalised knee therapy (PKT).Participants will be recruited from sites across the UK, Australia, Canada and Belgium. The planned 144 participants provide at least 90% power to detect a 10-point difference in the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) at 24-months post randomisation (primary outcome). A prospectively planned economic evaluation will be conducted from a healthcare system and personal social services perspective. Secondary outcome data including health utility, occupational status, sports participation, mental well-being, further treatment, and adverse events will be collected at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis and reported in-line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement.Ethics and disseminationThe trial was approved by the London—Bloomsbury Research Ethics Committee on 19 August 2022 (22/LO/0327) and Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee, NSW, Australia on the 13 March 2023 (2022/ETH01890).Trial results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, presentations at international conferences, in lay summaries and using social media as appropriate.This protocol adheres to the recommended Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist.Trial registration number ISRCTN87336549.

IntroductionChronic headaches are poorly diagnosed and managed and can be exacerbated by medication overuse. There is insufficient evidence on the non-pharmacological approaches to helping people living with chronic headaches.Methods and analysisChronic Headache Education and Self-management Study is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management education support programme on top of usual care for patients with chronic headaches against a control of usual care and relaxation. The intervention is a 2-day group course based on education, personal reflection and a cognitive behavioural approach, plus a nurse-led one-to-one consultation and follow-up over 8 weeks. We aim to recruit 689 participants (356 to the intervention arm and 333 to the control) from primary care and self-referral in London and the Midlands. The trial is powered to show a difference of 2.0 points on the Headache Impact Test, a patient-reported outcome measure at 12 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes include health related quality of life, self-efficacy, social activation and engagement, anxiety and depression and healthcare utilisation. Outcomes are being measured at 4, 8 and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness will be expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained.Ethics and disseminationThis trial will provide data on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management support programme for chronic headaches. The results will inform commissioning of services and clinical practice. North West – Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee have approved the trial. The current protocol version is 3.6 date 7 March 2019.Trial registration numberISRCTN79708100.

Background Chronic headache disorders are disabling. The CHESS trial studied the effects of a short non-pharmacological intervention of education with self-management support for people affected by migraine and/or tension type headache for at least 15 days per month for at least three months. There were no statistically significant effects on the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) at 12-months. However, we observed improvement in pain self-efficacy questionnaire (PSEQ) and short-term HIT-6. We explored the impact of the CHESS intervention on PSEQ, and subsequently, on the HIT-6 and chronic headache quality of life questionnaire (CH-QLQ) at four, eighth and 12 months. Methods We included all 736 participants from the CHESS trial. We used simple linear regression models to explore the change of HIT-6 and CH-QLQ with treatment and PSEQ at baseline (predictor analysis), and the interaction between treatment and baseline PSEQ (moderator analysis). We considered the change of PSEQ from baseline to four months as a mediator in the mediation analysis. Results Baseline PSEQ neither predicted nor moderated outcomes. The prediction effect on change of HIT-6 from baseline to 12 months was 0.01 (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.04) and the interaction (moderation) effect was −0.07 (95% CI, -0.15 to 0.002). However, the change of PSEQ from baseline to 4-month mediated the HIT-6 (baseline to 8-, and 12-month) and all components of CH-QLQ (baseline to 8-, and 12-month). The CHESS intervention improved the mediated variable, PSEQ, by 2.34 (95% CI, 0.484 to 4.187) units and this corresponds to an increase of 0.21 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.45) units in HIT-6 at 12-months. The largest mediated effect was observed on the CH-QLQ Emotional Function, an increase of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.22 to 2.20). Conclusions PSEQ was not an effective predictor of outcome. However, change of short-term PSEQ mediated all outcomes, albeit minimally. Future behavioural therapy for chronic headache may need to consider how to achieve larger, and more sustained increases level of self-efficacy than that achieved within the CHESS trial. Trial registration ISRCTN79708100.

Background Between 2015 and 2019 the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) developed and tested a supportive self-management approach that aimed to improve outcomes for people with chronic migraine or chronic tension type headache with/without episodic migraine. However, a paucity of qualitative research which explored the lived experiences of people with chronic headache was evidenced. In response, we undertook to explore the experiences of living with chronic headaches of people who participated in the CHESS study. Methods We adopted qualitative methodologies, inviting participants in the CHESS study to participate in semi-structured interviews. In phase 1 (feasibility study), a thematic analysis was conducted. In phase 2 (main CHESS trial), interviews were informed by topic guides developed from our learning from the phase 1 interviews. Pen portrait methodology and thematic analysis was employed allowing us to explore the data longitudinally. Results Phase 1, 15 interviews (10 female) age range 29 to 69 years (median 47 years) revealed the complexities of living with chronic headache. Six overarching themes were identified including the emotional impact and the nature of their headaches. Phase 2, included 66 interviews (26 participants; median age group 50s (range 20s-60s); 20 females. 14 were interviewed at three points in time (baseline, 4 and 12 months) Through an iterative process four overlapping categories of headache impact emerged from the data and were agreed: i) ‘I will not let headaches rule my life’; ii) ‘Headaches rule my life’; iii) ‘Headaches out of control—something needs to change’; and iv) ‘Headaches controlled—not ruling my life’. One of these categories was assigned to each pen portrait at each timepoint. The remaining 12 participants were interviewed at two time points during a year; pen portraits were again produced. Analysis revealed that the headache impact categories developed above held true in this sample also providing some validation of the categories. Conclusions These data give an insight into the complexities of living with chronic headache. Chronic headache is unpredictable, permeating all aspects of an individual’s life; even when an individual feels that their headache is controlled and not interfering, this situation can rapidly change. It shows us that more work needs to be done both medically and societally to help people living with this often-hidden condition. Trial registration ISRCTN79708100

Patient and public involvement (PPI) plays a crucial role in ensuring research is carried out in conjunction with the people that it will impact upon. In this article, we present our experiences and reflections from working collaboratively with patients and public through the lifetime of an National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) programme grant; the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) which took place between 2015 and 2020. We worked closely with three leading UK migraine charities and a lay advisory group throughout the programme. We followed NIHR standards and used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public checklist. We consulted our PPI contacts using a variety of methods depending on the phase of the study and the nature of the request. This included emails, discussions, and face-to-face contact.PPI members contributed throughout the study in the programme development, in the grant application, ethics documentation, and trial oversight. During the feasibility study; in supporting the development of a classification interview for chronic headache by participating in a headache classification conference, assessing the relevance, and acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures by helping to analyse cognitive interview data, and testing the smartphone application making suggestions on how best to present the summary of data collected for participants. Due to PPI contribution, the content and duration of the study intervention were adapted and a Delphi study with consensus meeting developed a core outcome set for migraine studies. The involvement of the public and patients in CHESS has allowed us to shape its overall design, intervention development, and establish a core outcome set for future migraine studies. We have reflected on many learning points for the future application of PPI.

Background The Chronic Headache Education and Self-Management Study (CHESS) multicentre randomised trial evaluated the impact a group education and self-management support intervention with a best usual care plus relaxation control for people living with chronic headache disorders (tension type headaches or chronic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache). Here we report the process evaluation exploring potential explanations for the lack of positive effects from the CHESS intervention. Methods The CHESS trial included 736 (380 intervention: 356 control) people across the Midlands and London UK. We used a mixed methods approach. Our extensive process evaluation looked at context, reach, recruitment, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity and experiences of participating in the trial, and included participants and trial staff. We also looked for evidence in our qualitative data to investigate whether the original causal assumptions underpinning the intervention were realised. Results The CHESS trial reached out to a large diverse population and recruited a representative sample. Few people with chronic tension type headaches without migraine were identified and recruited. The expected ‘dose‘of the intervention was delivered to participants and intervention fidelity was high. Attendance (“dose received”) fell below expectation, although 261/380 (69%) received at least at least the pre-identified minimum dose. Intervention participants generally enjoyed being in the groups but there was little evidence to support the causal assumptions underpinning the intervention were realised. Conclusions From a process evaluation perspective despite our extensive data collection and analysis, we do not have a clear understanding of why the trial outcome was negative as the intervention was delivered as planned. However, the lack of evidence that the intervention causal assumptions brought about the planned behaviour change may provide some insight. Our data suggests only modest changes in managing headache behaviours and some disparity in how participants engaged with components of the intervention within the timeframe of the study. Moving forwards, we need a better understanding of how those who live with chronic headache can be helped to manage this disabling condition more effectively over time. Trial registration ISRCTN79708100 .