Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38322798›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2023

Headache providers' perspectives of headache diaries in the era of increasing technology use: a qualitative study.

Mia Minen, Alexis George, Naomi Lebowitz, Aarti Katara, Ivy Snyder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Correlation between novel checkmark-only headache diary and productivity loss and medication effectiveness in migraine patients.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Mia MinenDepartment of Neurology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.
Alexis GeorgeDepartment of Neurology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.
Naomi LebowitzBarnard College, New York, NY, United States.
Aarti KataraBarnard College, New York, NY, United States.
Ivy SnyderDepartment of Psychology, Yeshiva University, New York, NY, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: No matter what type of headache is being considered across various populations, one of the mainstays of headache medicine is headache tracking. This self-management tool enables patients and their providers to understand patients' underlying symptoms and the effects of treatments they have tried. This is important to determining whether headaches are related to menses for women's health, to determining the time of headache occurrence, e.g., hypnic headache, and the location and duration of symptoms, e.g., trigeminal autonomic cephalgia. Prior research has investigated what people with headaches perceive about headache diary use and how people with headaches utilize electronic headache diaries. However, headache providers' perspectives on the important factors related to headache diaries are less known. Previously, using the Modified Delphi Process, a panel of four experts opined what they perceived as the most important factors for a headache diary. We sought to better understand headache providers' perspectives about headache diary/app usage from providers working in various institutions nationwide. Methods: We conducted 20 semi-structured qualitative interviews of headache providers across the US from various institutions and asked them their perspectives on headache diary use. We transcribed the interviews, which two independent coders then coded. Themes and subthemes were developed using grounded theory qualitative analysis. Results: Six themes emerged: (1) Providers were generally agnostic regarding the headache tracking method, but nearly all recommend the use of smartphones for tracking; (2) Providers had concerns regarding the accessibility of headache trackers; (3) Providers noted benefits to integrating headache tracking data into the EMR but had mixed opinions on how this integration might be done; (4) Providers had mixed opinions regarding the utility and interpretation of the data, specifically regarding data accuracy and efficiency; (5) Providers generally felt that headache tracking lends itself to more collaborative plan management; (6) Providers recommend behavioral health apps for patients but stated that there are few digital behavioral health interventions for headache specifically. Conclusion: Interviews of headache providers, recommenders, and users of headache data are vital informants who can provide a robust amount of information about headache diary development, use in different populations, integration, and more.

Indexed as

digital healthheadacheheadache diarymigraineprovider perspectivesymptom tracking

Identifiers

PMID38322798
PMCPMC10844531

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.