ArticleHeadache2021
Telehealth as a new care delivery model: The headache provider experience.
Article in Headache, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Review
- Integrative Migraine Therapy: From Current Concepts to Future Directions-A Plastic Surgeon's Perspective.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Mobile App-Based Interactive Care Plan for Migraine: Survey Study of Usability and Improvement Opportunities.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Influence of next-generation artificial intelligence on headache research, diagnosis and treatment: the junior editorial board members' vision - part 1.The journal of headache and pain · 2024Review
- A Comparison of Patients' and Neurologists' Assessments of their Teleneurology Encounter: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2024Article
- Evolving migraine management: Lithuania's telemedicine experience.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Telemedicine in Headache Medicine: A Narrative Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2023Review
- A Novel Virtual-Based Comprehensive Clinical Approach to Headache Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Patient Factors in the Dose Selection of Oral Sumatriptan for Acute Migraine: A Post Hoc Analysis of Two Randomized Controlled Studies.Pain and therapy · 2023Article
- Digital Therapeutics in Migraine Management: A Novel Treatment Option in the COVID-19 Era.Journal of pain research · 2023Review
- Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people living with migraine: Results of the MiCOAS qualitative study.Headache · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess telehealth practice for headache visits in the United States.
backgroundThe rapid roll out of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted headache specialists.
methodsAmerican Headache Society (AHS) members were emailed an anonymous survey (9/9/20-10/12/20) to complete if they had logged ≥2 months or 50+ headache visits via telehealth.
resultsOut of 1348 members, 225 (16.7%) responded. Most were female (59.8%; 113/189). Median age was 47 (interquartile range [IQR] 37-57) (N = 154). The majority were MD/DOs (83.7%; 159/190) or NP/PAs (14.7%; 28/190), and most (65.1%; 123/189) were in academia. Years in practice were 0-3: 28; 4-10: 58; 11-20: 42; 20+: 61. Median number of telehealth visits was 120 (IQR 77.5-250) in the prior 3 months. Respondents were "comfortable/very comfortable" treating via telehealth (a) new patient with a chief complaint of headache (median, IQR 4 [3-5]); (b) follow-up for migraine (median, IQR 5 [5-5]); (c) follow-up for secondary headache (median, IQR 4 [3-4]). About half (51.1%; 97/190) offer urgent telehealth. Beyond being unable to perform procedures, top barriers were conducting parts of the neurologic exam (157/189), absence of vital signs (117/189), and socioeconomic/technologic barriers (91/189). Top positive attributes were patient convenience (185/190), reducing patient travel stress (172/190), patient cost reduction (151/190), flexibility with personal matters (128/190), patient comfort at home (114/190), and patient medications nearby (103/190). Only 21.3% (33/155) of providers said telehealth visit length differed from in-person visits, and 55.3% (105/190) believe that the no-show rate improved. On a 1-5 Likert scale, providers were "interested"/"very interested" in digitally prescribing headache apps (median 4, IQR 3-5) and "interested"/"very interested" in remotely monitoring patient symptoms (median 4, IQR 3-5).
conclusionsRespondents were comfortable treating patients with migraine via telehealth. They note positive attributes for patients and how access may be improved. Technology innovations (remote vital signs, digitally prescribing headache apps) and remote symptom monitoring are areas of interest and warrant future research.
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.