Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34319243›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2021

A Biofeedback App for Migraine: Development and Usability Study.

Sigrid Hegna Ingvaldsen, Erling Tronvik, Eiliv Brenner, Ingunn Winnberg, Alexander Olsen, Gøril Bruvik Gravdahl, Anker Stubberud

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Psychological interventions for migraine.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Intelligent Digital Twins for Personalized Migraine Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sigrid Hegna Ingvaldsen *Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6368-8207
Erling TronvikDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6059-0151
Eiliv BrennerDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0623-9170
Ingunn WinnbergNational Advisory Unit on Headaches, Department of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6383-5257
Alexander OlsenDepartment of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8691-3860
Gøril Bruvik GravdahlDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7507-2082
Anker StubberudDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0934-9914
Norwegian University of Science and Technology · NOSt Olav's University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiofeedback is effective in treating migraines. It is believed to have a beneficial effect on autonomous nervous system activity and render individuals resilient to stressors that may trigger a migraine. However, widespread use of biofeedback is hampered by the need for a trained therapist and specialized equipment. Emerging digital health technology, including smartphones and wearables (mHealth), enables new ways of administering biofeedback. Currently, mHealth interventions for migraine appear feasible, but development processes and usability testing remain insufficient.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate and improve the feasibility and usability of an mHealth biofeedback treatment app for adults with migraine.

methodsIn a prospective development and usability study, 18 adults with migraine completed a 4-week testing period of self-administered therapist-independent biofeedback treatment consisting of a smartphone app connected to wearable sensors (Cerebri, Nordic Brain Tech AS). The app included biofeedback training, instructions for self-delivery, and a headache diary. Two wearable sensors were used to measure surface electromyographic voltage at the trapezius muscle and peripheral skin temperature and heart rate at the right second fingertip. Participants were instructed to complete a daily headache diary entry and biofeedback session of 10 minutes duration. The testing period was preceded by a preusability expectation interview and succeeded by a postusability experience interview. In addition, an evaluation questionnaire was completed at weeks 2 and 4. Adherence was calculated as the proportion of 10-minute sessions completed within the first 28 days of treatment. Usability and feasibility were analyzed and summarized quantitatively and qualitatively.

resultsA total of 391 biofeedback sessions were completed with a median of 25 (IQR 17-28) per participant. The mean adherence rate was 0.76 (SD 0.26). The evaluation questionnaire revealed that functionality and design had the highest scores, whereas engagement and biofeedback were lower. Qualitative preexpectation analysis revealed that participants expected to become better familiar with physical signals and gain more understanding of their migraine attacks and noted that the app should be simple and understandable. Postusability analysis indicated that participants had an overall positive user experience with some suggestions for improvement regarding the design of the wearables and app content. The intervention was safe and tolerable. One case of prespecified adverse events was recorded in which a patient developed a skin rash from the sticky surface electromyography electrodes.

conclusionsThe app underwent a rigorous development process that indicated an overall positive user experience, good usability, and high adherence rate. This study highlights the value of usability testing in the development of mHealth apps.

Indexed as

headachemHealthsmartphonewearables

Identifiers

PMID34319243
PMCPMC8367148
OpenAlexW3170032457

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.