IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ohe/shealt/000734.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Migraine

Author

Listed:
  • J. N. Blau;Michael F. Drummond

Abstract

'Choose something common and you will find little is known about it' (Henry Head to the young Dr Russell Brain c 1920). Although common (8 per cent of the population) and recognised for more than 2,000 years, migraine has rarely commanded significant professional or public attention. It does not shorten life or cause permanent injury. In contrast to many current health problems examined in the Office of Health Economics' series, the morbidity generated by migraine does not give rise to substantial costs borne by the National Health Service. The 'low profile' image of migraine has also been fostered by several other factors. From a scientific perspective, although investigative techniques have advanced there have been no significant breakthroughs in understanding the aetiology of the disorder. Many theories about causation have been put forward but none proven: hypotheses include, inter alia, vasospasm, alterations in the metabolism of the neurotransmitter serotonin, food allergy, abnormalities of the blood-brain barrier, platelets and cerebral hypoxia. The debate over whether migraine is the result of disturbances in the vascular or neurological systems, started in the late 19th century, remains unresolved. Various popular beliefs have grown up around migraine, for example, that it is a neurotic disorder, which, rather than generating positive concern, have tended to diminish sympathy that might otherwise have been extended to sufferers of the condition. A typical sufferer is popularly thought to be extremely intelligent, highly strung and a perfectionist. It is also perceived by some to be a hysterical female disorder. And others have used the term inappropriately to describe much more minor head pains as a means of giving greater justification to a decision not to do something, such as attend work. Yet migraine is a much more significant disorder than might be suggested by these erroneous notions. In the first instance, migraine is experienced by a large number of people. Despite the availability of data from the many surveys that have been carried out, precise estimates of prevalence are difficult to obtain because of differing criteria to define cases of the disorder and variations in the proportion of cases likely to become known to the inquiring agency. Nevertheless, if estimates suggesting prevalence rates of between 7 and 10 per cent are correct, then there are currently 3.9 to 5.6 million migraine sufferers in the United Kingdom. This implies that migraine affects twice as many individuals as, for example, asthma, a disease that has featured much more prominently and regularly in both the medical and lay media. Although migraine does not give rise to substantial financial costs to the National Health Service, the disorder can impose severe burdens on sufferers themselves. The impact of disease on quality of life and the effectiveness of medical interventions in improving the well-being of sufferers are topics that are increasingly attracting the attention of individuals responsible for affecting and managing the delivery of health care as well as the concern of the community as a whole. One of the objectives of this paper is to investigate migraine from these two perspectives. Finally, it is an appropriate time for an OHE publication to examine migraine because of contemporary and indeed, mutually relevant developments in therapeutic research and the NHS. After a prolonged period in which drug therapy for migraine has made little advance, research has produced promising medicines for the effective treatment of acute episodes of migraine. At the same time, the NHS is becoming increasingly concerned to ensure maximum efficiency in the use of its resources. New medicines, along with other forms of intervention, will therefore more frequently be examined from a value for money viewpoint in addition to being subject to conventional clinical assessments. Against the background of these two developments, this paper examines some of the critical issues involved in assessing the economic and quality of life impacts of therapies for migraine.

Suggested Citation

  • J. N. Blau;Michael F. Drummond, 1991. "Migraine," Series on Health 000734, Office of Health Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ohe:shealt:000734
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/publications/migraine-1/attachment-190-1991_migraine_blau/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George W. Torrance & Michael H. Boyle & Sargent P. Horwood, 1982. "Application of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory to Measure Social Preferences for Health States," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1043-1069, December.
    2. Michael F. Drummond;George Teeling Smith;Nick Wells, 1988. "Economic Evaluation and Develop Medicines in the Development of Medicines," Monograph 000361, Office of Health Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nick Bansback & Huiying Sun & Daphne P. Guh & Xin Li & Bohdan Nosyk & Susan Griffin & Paul G. Barnett & Aslam H. Anis, 2008. "Impact of the recall period on measuring health utilities for acute events," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1413-1419.
    2. Gordon Hazen, 2004. "Multiattribute Structure for QALYs," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 205-216, December.
    3. Zhang, Tianyu & Dong, Peiwu & Zeng, Yongchao & Ju, Yanbing, 2022. "Analyzing the diffusion of competitive smart wearable devices: An agent-based multi-dimensional relative agreement model," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 90-105.
    4. Anirban Basu & William Dale & Arthur Elstein & David Meltzer, 2009. "A linear index for predicting joint health‐states utilities from single health‐states utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 403-419, April.
    5. Cathleen Mooney & Alvin I. Mushlin & Charles E. Phelps, 1990. "Targeting Assessments of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in suspected Multiple sclerosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(2), pages 77-94, June.
    6. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    7. Lee, Jonq-Ying & Rampersaud, Gail S. & Brown, Mark G., 2008. "An Index to Measure Health Status," Research papers 36819, Florida Department of Citrus.
    8. Hammer, Jeffrey S., 1992. "To prescribe or not to prescribe: On the regulation of pharmaceuticals in less developed countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 959-964, May.
    9. William B. Haskell & Wenjie Huang & Huifu Xu, 2018. "Preference Elicitation and Robust Optimization with Multi-Attribute Quasi-Concave Choice Functions," Papers 1805.06632, arXiv.org.
    10. San Miguel, Fernando & Ryan, Mandy & Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Are preferences stable? The case of health care," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 1-14, May.
    11. George W. Torrance & David Feeny & William Furlong, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(4), pages 329-334, August.
    12. Busschbach, Jan J. V. & McDonnell, Joseph & Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & van Hout, Ben A., 1999. "Estimating parametric relationships between health description and health valuation with an application to the EuroQol EQ-5D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 551-570, October.
    13. Bernie O'Brien, 1991. "Cholesterol and Coronary Heart Disease: Consensus or Controversy?," Series on Health 000381, Office of Health Economics.
    14. Alan Shiell & Janelle Seymour & Penelope Hawe & Sue Cameron, 2000. "Are preferences over health states complete?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 47-55, January.
    15. Andrew Grant & Steve Satchell, 2019. "Endogenous divorce risk and investment," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 32(3), pages 845-876, July.
    16. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    17. David Feeny, 2012. "The Multi-attribute Utility Approach to Assessing Health-related Quality of Life," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 36, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    19. A. David Paltiel & Kenneth A. Freedberg, 1998. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing Cytomegalovirus Disease in AIDS Patients," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 34-51, June.
    20. Coast, Joanna, 2009. "Maximisation in extra-welfarism: A critique of the current position in health economics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 786-792, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Migraine;

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ohe:shealt:000734. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Publications Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ohecouk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.