Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34380429›Full record

ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2021

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.

Michela Tinelli, Matilde Leonardi, Koen Paemeleire, Alberto Raggi, Dimos Mitsikostas, Elena Ruiz de la Torre, Timothy J Steiner, European Brain Council Value of Treatment Headache Working Group, the European Headache Federation, the European Migraine and Headache Alliance and Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Psychological interventions for migraine.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Hallmarks of primary headache: part 1 - migraine.The journal of headache and pain · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. The Migraine Stigma Kaleidoscope View.Neurology and therapy · 2023
    Article
  20. One Health for Headaches: A Clinical Scientist Residence Project.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    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

8 authors.

Michela TinelliCare Policy Evaluation Centre, The London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK. m.tinelli@lse.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8816-4389
Matilde LeonardiFondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy.
Koen PaemeleireDepartment of Neurology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Alberto RaggiFondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy.
Dimos Mitsikostas1st Department of Neurology, Aeginition Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Elena Ruiz de la TorreEuropean Migraine and Headache Alliance, Brussels, Belgium.
Timothy J SteinerDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
European Brain Council Value of Treatment Headache Working Group, the European Headache Federation, the European Migraine and Headache Alliance and Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere have been several calls for estimations of costs and consequences of headache interventions to inform European public-health policies. In a previous paper, in the absence of universally accepted methodology, we developed headache-type-specific analytical models to be applied to implementation of structured headache services in Europe as the health-care solution to headache. Here we apply this methodology and present the findings.

methodsData sources were published evidence and expert opinions, including those from an earlier economic evaluation framework using the WHO-CHOICE model. We used three headache-type-specific analytical models, for migraine, tension-type-headache (TTH) and medication-overuse-headache (MOH). We considered three European Region case studies, from Luxembourg, Russia and Spain to include a range of health-care systems, comparing current (suboptimal) care versus target care (structured services implemented, with provider-training and consumer-education). We made annual and 5-year cost estimates from health-care provider and societal perspectives (2020 figures, euros). We expressed effectiveness as healthy life years (HLYs) gained, and cost-effectiveness as incremental cost-effectiveness-ratios (ICERs; cost to be invested/HLY gained). We applied WHO thresholds for cost-effectiveness.

resultsThe models demonstrated increased effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness (migraine) or cost saving (TTH, MOH) from the provider perspective over one and 5 years and consistently across the health-care systems and settings. From the societal perspective, we found structured headache services would be economically successful, not only delivering increased effectiveness but also cost saving across headache types and over time. The predicted magnitude of cost saving correlated positively with country wage levels. Lost productivity had a major impact on these estimates, but sensitivity analyses showed the intervention remained cost-effective across all models when we assumed that remedying disability would recover only 20% of lost productivity.

conclusionsThis is the first study to propose a health-care solution for headache, in the form of structured headache services, and evaluate it economically in multiple settings. Despite numerous challenges, we demonstrated that economic evaluation of headache services, in terms of outcomes and costs, is feasible as well as necessary. Furthermore, it is strongly supportive of the proposed intervention, while its framework is general enough to be easily adapted and implemented across Europe.

Indexed as

Headache DisordersTension-Type HeadacheCost-Benefit AnalysisEuropeHeadacheHumansCost-effectivenessGlobal campaign against headacheHeadacheHealth economicsHealthy-life-years (HLYs)Medication-overuse-headache (MOH)MigraineQuality improvementStructured headache servicesTension-type-headache (TTH)

Identifiers

PMID34380429
PMCPMC8359596

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.