Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40143383›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2025

Mobile App-Based Interactive Care Plan for Migraine: Survey Study of Usability and Improvement Opportunities.

Nathan P Young, Jennifer I Stern, Stephanie J Steel, Jon O Ebbert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Nathan P YoungDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW Eighth Floor, Rochester, MN, 55905, United States, 1 5072842844.ORCID 0000-0001-7788-6493
Jennifer I SternDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW Eighth Floor, Rochester, MN, 55905, United States, 1 5072842844.ORCID 0009-0004-6913-7168
Stephanie J SteelDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW Eighth Floor, Rochester, MN, 55905, United States, 1 5072842844.ORCID 0000-0002-7975-3704
Jon O EbbertDepartment of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7975-3704

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: We implemented a novel mobile app-based Migraine Interactive Care Plan (MICP) integrated with our electronic health records (EHRs). The MICP facilitates remote assessment of adult patients with migraine, educational content delivery, and care team communication. Feasibility of the MICP was demonstrated in a pilot implementation study. Objective: We aimed to assess the preferences and satisfaction of patients with migraine users of a mobile app-based care plan integrated with the EHR. Methods: An electronic survey was administered to a single cohort of MICP users between December 6, 2021, and December 30, 2021. The survey assessed patient preferences for which data to track, frequency of tracking, and satisfaction with the MICP. Survey responses were compared between subsets determined by patient-reported headache frequency and treatment with and without botulinum toxin and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist therapy. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for continuous variables and the χ2 test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables. Results: The total sample size was 184 and the survey response rate was 30.4% (56/184). No significant differences in age (P=.26) or sex (P=.19) between respondents and nonrespondents were observed. Respondent median age was 42 (range 20-72) years and 94.6% (53/56) were female. Headache frequency was (1) 0 to 8 days (26/56, 46.4%), (2) 9 to 14 days (12/56, 21.4%), and (3) 15 or more days (18/56, 32.1%). No difference was observed in any survey responses based on headache frequency or treatment. The majority of respondents preferred to track headache days weekly (30/56, 53.6%) or daily (15/56, 26.8%) and preferred to change the frequency of headache tracking reminders (42/56, 75%). Respondents were somewhat or very interested in daily tracking personal observations in free text (41/52, 78.8%), medication treatment (43/52, 82.7%) and treatment response (39/56, 69.6%), class of medication treatment (36/52, 69.2%), severity of functional impairment (39/56, 69.6%), type of functional impairment (35/53, 66%), headache day (40/54, 74.1%), and headache pain level on a scale of 1 to 10 (38/53, 71.7%). Respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the education content was useful (31/51, 60.8%) but lacked personalization (25/51, 49%). Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the MICP (38/50, 76%) and that it helped them communicate with their care team (38/53, 71.7%). Conclusions: Most MICP users were motivated to track headache frequency, medication treatment with response, functional impairment, and pain intensity. Opportunities to improve the MICP include (1) allowing patients to change the frequency of assessments and notifications; (2) recording personal observations or comments through free text, which may include headache triggers; (3) assessment of headache severity using a 1 to 10 pain scale; and (4) tailoring headache education based on frequency and severity (episodic vs chronic migraine). These observations may be useful to improve the usability of the MICP and similar EHR-integrated migraine care platforms that others may develop.

Indexed as

Migraine DisordersMobile ApplicationsAdultElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient PreferencePatient SatisfactionSurveys and Questionnairesadultappcare plandigital healtheHealthelectronic health recordelectronic surveyheadachemHealthmigrainemobile appmobile phoneolder adultpainpatient-reported outcomesremote assessmentremote monitoringsmartphonesurvey studytechnologytelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID40143383
PMCPMC11964953

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.