1
|
Urtecho M, Wagner B, Wang Z, VanderPluym JH, Halker Singh RB, Noyes J, Butler ME, Murad MH. A qualitative evidence synthesis of patient perspectives on migraine treatment features and outcomes. Headache 2023; 63:185-201. [PMID: 36602191 DOI: 10.1111/head.14430] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2022] [Revised: 09/24/2022] [Accepted: 09/26/2022] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We aimed to identify migraine treatment features preferred by patients and treatment outcomes most valued by patients. BACKGROUND The values and preferences of people living with migraine are critical for both the choice of acute therapy and management approach of migraine. METHODS We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis. Two reviewers independently selected studies, appraised methodological quality, and undertook a framework synthesis. We developed summary of findings tables following the approach of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research to assess confidence in the findings. RESULTS Of 1691 candidate references, we included 19 studies (21 publications) involving 459 patients. The studies mostly recruited White women from North America (11 studies) and Europe (8 studies). We identified eight themes encompassing features preferred by patients in a migraine treatment process. Themes described a treatment process that included shared decision-making, a tailored approach, trust in health-care professionals, sharing of knowledge and diversity of treatment options, a holistic approach that does not just address the headache, ease of communication especially for complex treatments, a non-undermining approach, and reciprocity with mutual respect between patient and provider. In terms of the treatment itself, seven themes emerged including patients' preferences for nonpharmacologic treatment, high effectiveness, rapidity of action, long-lasting effect, lower cost and more accessibility, self-management/self-delivery option that increases autonomy, and a mixed preference for abortive versus prophylactic treatments. The treatment outcomes that have high value to patients included maintaining or improving function; avoiding side effects, potential for addiction to medications, and pain reoccurrence; and avoiding non-headache symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light or sounds. CONCLUSION Patient values and preferences were individually constructed, varied widely, and could be at odds with conventional medical perspectives and evidence of treatment effects. Considering the availability of numerous treatments for acute migraine, it is necessary that decision-making incorporates patient values and preferences identified in qualitative research. The findings of this qualitative synthesis can be used to facilitate an individually tailored approach, strengthen the patient-health-care system relationship, and guide choices and decisions in the context of a clinical encounter or a clinical practice guideline.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Meritxell Urtecho
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.,Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Brittin Wagner
- Minnesota Evidence-Based Practice Center, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Zhen Wang
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.,Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.,Division of Health Care Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Juliana H VanderPluym
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.,Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
| | - Rashmi B Halker Singh
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.,Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
| | - Jane Noyes
- School of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | - Mary E Butler
- Minnesota Evidence-Based Practice Center, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Mohammad Hassan Murad
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.,Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dowell D, Ragan KR, Jones CM, Baldwin GT, Chou R. CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022. MMWR Recomm Rep 2022; 71:1-95. [PMID: 36327391 PMCID: PMC9639433 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.rr7103a1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 386] [Impact Index Per Article: 193.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years. It updates the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-1]:1-49) and includes recommendations for managing acute (duration of <1 month), subacute (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic (duration of >3 months) pain. The recommendations do not apply to pain related to sickle cell disease or cancer or to patients receiving palliative or end-of-life care. The guideline addresses the following four areas: 1) determining whether or not to initiate opioids for pain, 2) selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages, 3) deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up, and 4) assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the scientific evidence and reflect considerations of benefits and harms, patient and clinician values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a federally chartered advisory committee), the public, and peer reviewers. CDC recommends that persons with pain receive appropriate pain treatment, with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of all treatment options in the context of the patient's circumstances. Recommendations should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations. This clinical practice guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the benefits and risks of pain treatments, including opioid therapy; improve the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment; mitigate pain; improve function and quality of life for patients with pain; and reduce risks associated with opioid pain therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.
Collapse
|