IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0098933.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Do Patients Consider to Be the Most Important Outcomes for Effectiveness Studies on Migraine Treatment? Results of a Delphi Study

Author

Listed:
  • Antonia F H Smelt
  • Mark A Louter
  • Dennis A Kies
  • Jeanet W Blom
  • Gisela M Terwindt
  • Geert J M G van der Heijden
  • Véronique De Gucht
  • Michel D Ferrari
  • Willem J J Assendelft

Abstract

Background: The outcome measures most frequently used in studies on the effectiveness of migraine treatment are whether the patient is free of pain, nausea, and free of photophobia/phonophobia within two hours. However, no patient-centred outcome measures are available. Therefore, we performed an online Delphi procedure to compile a list of outcome measures deemed most important to migraine patients. Methods: From a large database of migraine patients, we randomly selected 150 males and 150 females patients. We asked the open-ended question: ‘If a new medicine was developed for migraine attacks, what would you wish the effect of this medication to be?’ In the second and third rounds, we presented the answers of the first round and asked the patients to rate the importance of each item. Results: The initial response rate was 56% (n = 169). In the subsequent rounds the response rates were 90% (n = 152), and 97% (n = 147), respectively. Patients wanted their attack medication to treat the headache within 30 min, to prevent the attack from getting worse, to ensure they could function properly within 1 h, and prevent the recurrence of symptoms during the same day. Conclusions: The currently used outcome measures in migraine research do not sufficiently reflect the wishes of patients. Patients want the medication to work faster, to take away pain at an earlier stage, to make them able to function properly quickly, and to prevent recurrence. These aspects should be considered in future evaluation of new attack medication for migraine.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonia F H Smelt & Mark A Louter & Dennis A Kies & Jeanet W Blom & Gisela M Terwindt & Geert J M G van der Heijden & Véronique De Gucht & Michel D Ferrari & Willem J J Assendelft, 2014. "What Do Patients Consider to Be the Most Important Outcomes for Effectiveness Studies on Migraine Treatment? Results of a Delphi Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-7, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0098933
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098933
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0098933
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0098933&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0098933?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0098933. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.