ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2021
Headache service quality evaluation: implementation of quality indicators in primary care in Europe.
Article in The journal of headache and pain, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Addressing the Treatment Gap for Pediatric Headache in Underserved Regions.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Awareness and Prescribing Patterns of Acute and Preventive Migraine Medications Among General Practitioners: The Kawasaki Medical Association Study.Pain research & management · 2026Article
- Healthcare providers' perspectives on headache care in Azerbaijan: results of a national cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- The Global Campaign against Headache, aged 21: a critical self-appraisal, and plans for phase 2.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Article
- The epidemiology and unmet need of migraine in five european countries: results from the national health and wellness survey.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Unmet Needs in the Acute Treatment of Migraine.Advances in therapy · 2024Article
- Accuracy of migraine diagnosis and treatment by neurologists in the Baltic states: e-survey with clinical case challenge.European journal of medical research · 2023Article
- The Global Campaign turns 18: a brief review of its activities and achievements.The journal of headache and pain · 2022Review
- Barriers and gaps in headache education: a national cross-sectional survey of neurology residents in Denmark.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- The management and clinical knowledge of headache disorders among general practitioners in Norway: a questionnaire survey.The journal of headache and pain · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLifting The Burden (LTB) and European Headache Federation (EHF) have developed a set of headache service quality indicators, successfully tested in specialist headache centres. Their intended application includes all levels of care. Here we assess their implementation in primary care.
methodsWe included 28 primary-care clinics in Germany (4), Turkey (4), Latvia (5) and Portugal (15). To implement the indicators, we interviewed 111 doctors, 92 nurses and medical assistants, 70 secretaries, 27 service managers and 493 patients, using the questionnaires developed by LTB and EHF. In addition, we evaluated 675 patients' records. Enquiries were in nine domains: diagnosis, individualized management, referral pathways, patient education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient satisfaction, equity and efficiency of headache care, outcome assessment and safety.
resultsThe principal finding was that Implementation proved feasible and practical in primary care. In the process, we identified significant quality deficits. Almost everywhere, histories of headache, especially temporal profiles, were captured and/or assessed inaccurately. A substantial proportion (20%) of patients received non-specific ICD codes such as R51 ("headache") rather than specific headache diagnoses. Headache-related disability and quality of life were not part of routine clinical enquiry. Headache diaries and calendars were not in use. Waiting times were long (e.g., about 60 min in Germany). Nevertheless, most patients (> 85%) expressed satisfaction with their care. Almost all the participating clinics provided equitable and easy access to treatment, and follow-up for most headache patients, without unnecessary barriers.
conclusionsThe study demonstrated that headache service quality indicators can be used in primary care, proving both practical and fit for purpose. It also uncovered quality deficits leading to suboptimal treatment, often due to a lack of knowledge among the general practitioners. There were failures of process also. These findings signal the need for additional training in headache diagnosis and management in primary care, where most headache patients are necessarily treated. More generally, they underline the importance of headache service quality evaluation in primary care, not only to identify-quality failings but also to guide improvements. This study also demonstrated that patients' satisfaction is not, on its own, a good indicator of service quality.
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.