ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2017
Quality indicators in headache care: an implementation study in six Italian specialist-care centres.
Article in The journal of headache and pain, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Global Campaign against Headache, aged 21: a critical self-appraisal, and plans for phase 2.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Article
- The Global Campaign turns 18: a brief review of its activities and achievements.The journal of headache and pain · 2022Review
- What is the value and impact of the adaptation process on quality indicators for local use? A scoping review.PloS one · 2022Article
- Collaboration amongst general practitioners and gynaecologists working in primary health care in Germany: a cross-sectional study.Primary health care research & development · 2021Article
- Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache. 3. Modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementation in Europe: findings and conclusions.The journal of headache and pain · 2021Article
- Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache: 1. Rationale and descriptionThe journal of headache and pain · 2021Article
- Management of Migraine and the Accessibility of Specialist Care: Findings from an Extended Multinational Survey (My Migraine Center Survey).Neurology and therapy · 2020Article
- Proposal of a clinical care pathway for quality and safe management of headache patients: a consensus study report.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Assessment of quality of life in individuals with chronic headache. Psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF.BMC neurology · 2020Article
- Rapid referral for headache management from emergency department to headache centre: four years data.The journal of headache and pain · 2020Article
- Current and emerging evidence-based treatment options in chronic migraine: a narrative review.The journal of headache and pain · 2019Review
- Quality assurance in specialized headache units in Spain: an observational prospective study.The journal of headache and pain · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeadache disorders are highly prevalent, and have a substantial and negative impact on health worldwide. They are largely treatable, but differences in structure, objectives, organization and delivery affect the quality of headache care. In order to recognize and remedy deficiencies in care, the Global Campaign against Headache, in collaboration with the European Headache Federation, recently developed a set of quality indicators for headache services. These require further assessment to demonstrate fitness for purpose. This is their first implementation to evaluate quality in headache care as a multicentre national study.
methodsBetween September and December 2016, we applied the quality indicators in six Italian specialist headache centres (Bologna, Firenze, Modena, Padova, Roma Campus Bio-Medico and Roma Sapienza). We used five previously developed assessment instruments, translated into Italian according to Lifting The Burden's translation protocol for hybrid documents. We took data from 360 consecutive patients (60 per centre) by questionnaire and from their medical records, and by different questionnaires from their health-care providers (HCPs), including physicians, nurses, psychologists and nursing assistants.
resultsThe findings, comparable between centres, confirmed the feasibility and practicability of using the quality indicators in Italian specialist headache centres. The questionnaires were easily understood by HCPs and patients, and were not unduly time-consuming. Diagnoses were almost all (> 97%) according to ICHD criteria, and routinely (100%) reviewed during follow-up. Diagnostic diaries were regularly used by 96% of physicians. Referral pathways from primary to specialist care existed in five of the six clinics, as did urgent referral pathways. Instruments to assess disability and quality of life were not used regularly, a deficiency that needs to be addressed.
conclusionThis Italy-wide survey confirmed in six specialist centres that the headache service quality indicators are fit for purpose. By establishing majority practice, identifying commonalities and detecting deficits as a guide to quality improvement, the quality indicators may be used to set benchmarks for quality assessment. The next step is extend use and evaluation of the indicators into non-specialist care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.