Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33942667›Full record

ArticleCephalalgia : an international journal of headache2021

Measuring health-related quality of life in chronic headache: A comparative evaluation of the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6).

Kirstie L Haywood, Felix Achana, Vivien Nichols, Gemma Pearce, Barbara Box, Lynne Muldoon, Shilpa Patel, Frances Griffiths, Kimberly Stewart, Martin Underwood and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Kirstie L HaywoodWarwick Research in Nursing, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5405-187X
Felix AchanaWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Vivien NicholsWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Gemma PearceSchool of Psychology, Social and Behavioural Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, UK.
Barbara BoxWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Lynne MuldoonWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Shilpa PatelWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Frances GriffithsSocial Science and Systems in Health, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Kimberly StewartWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Martin UnderwoodWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Manjit M MatharuThe Headache Group, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College of London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, AC1 London, UK.
CHESS Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the quality and acceptability of a new headache-specific patient-reported measure, the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire (CHQLQ) with the six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), in people meeting an epidemiological definition of chronic headaches.

methodsParticipants in the feasibility stage of the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) (n = 130) completed measures three times during a 12-week prospective cohort study. Data quality, measurement acceptability, reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, and score interpretation were determined. Semi-structured cognitive interviews explored measurement relevance, acceptability, clarity, and comprehensiveness.

resultsBoth measures were well completed with few missing items. The CHQLQ's inclusion of emotional wellbeing items increased its relevance to participant's experience of chronic headache. End effects were present at item level only for both measures. Structural assessment supported the three and one-factor solutions of the CHQLQ and HIT-6, respectively. Both the CHQLQ (range 0.87 to 0.94) and HIT-6 (0.90) were internally consistent, with acceptable temporal stability over 2 weeks (CHQLQ range 0.74 to 0.80; HIT-6 0.86). Both measures responded to change in headache-specific health at 12 weeks (CHQLQ smallest detectable change (improvement) range 3 to 5; HIT-6 2.1).

conclusionsWhile both measures are structurally valid, internally consistent, temporally stable, and responsive to change, the CHQLQ has greater relevance to the patient experience of chronic headache.

Indexed as

AdultAgedChronic DiseaseFemaleHeadacheHeadache DisordersHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaireschronic headacheHeadache Impact Testoutcome measurespsychometric evaluationquality of life

Identifiers

PMID33942667
PMCPMC8411468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.