Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Migraine-attributed burden, impact, disability and migraine-impacted quality of life are important concepts in clinical management, clinical and epidemiological research, and health policy, requiring clear and agreed definitions. We aimed to formulate concise and precise definitions of these concepts by expert consensus.

Methods

We searched the terms migraine-attributed burden, impact, disability and migraine-impacted quality of life in Embase and Medline from 1974 and 1946 respectively. We followed a Delphi process to reach consensus on definitions.

Results

We found widespread conflation of concepts and inconsistent terminology within publications. Following three Delphi rounds, we defined migraine-attributed burden as “the summation of all negative consequences of the disease or its diagnosis”; migraine-attributed impact as “the effect of the disease, or its diagnosis, on a specified aspect of life, health or wellbeing”; migraine-attributed disability as “physical, cognitive and mental incapacities imposed by the disease”; and migraine-impacted quality of life as “the subjective assessment by a person with the disease of their general wellbeing, position and prospects in life”. We complemented each definition with a detailed description.

Conclusion

These definitions and descriptions should foster consistency and encourage more appropriate use of currently available quantifying instruments and aid the future development of others.

Keywords

Migraine burden impact disability quality of life definitions Delphi expert consensus

Introduction

Migraine impairs health, disables those affected, and impacts their wellbeing. Evidence of this is supplied by many sources (1 –10). Among these, the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) studies have reiteratively ranked migraine as the second highest single cause of years lived with disability (YLDs) worldwide (8 –10).

The evidence from GBD is particularly compelling, but in the context of our study – concerned with definitions – it calls for considered interpretation. While GBD’s stated purpose is to estimate burden attributed to all diseases, enabling these to be ranked for the purpose of informing health policy (11), the expression of non-fatal burden in YLDs is not conceptually coherent. Firstly, non-fatal burden is not wholly quantifiable by a measure of disability. Secondly, YLDs are not in any case a measure of disability but of disease-attributed health states ranked according to public preferences for one health state over another (12). YLDs better reflect lost health due to disease (12), which may indeed approximate to the concept of burden of disease, but the latter is a much more complex construct than disability, and certainly not synonymous with it.

In the vocabulary of migraine, burden, disability, impact and quality of life are important concepts. They are quantifiers, guiding clinical management of the disorder and informing clinical and epidemiological research into migraine and health policy (13,14). There is a complex relationship between them, which is to some extent hierarchical, with burden correctly regarded as an overarching construct subsuming the others (13).

However, the literature addressing these concepts often distinguishes poorly or not at all between them, sometimes using the terms as though synonymous. Whatever conceptual confusion and disagreements lie behind this, they need to be resolved for the benefit of care, research and health policy. To this end, the terms require clear and credible definitions, whether they are to be applied at individual or population levels. These do not currently exist. Our objective, therefore, was to formulate such definitions by expert consensus.

Methods

Panel of experts

Prior to initiation of this work, Eli Lilly and Company established a ten-member multi-stakeholder working group, including experts in various aspects of headache medicine, representatives of patient advocacy groups and policy makers, to support actions to improve management of migraine in Europe. The group identified barriers to care and proposed remedial initiatives, of which this is one, with members then deciding in which initiatives they wished to participate.

All eight authors constituted the expert panel for this work. TJS, GMT, ZK, PPR, ARG and CT were members of the multi-stakeholder working group and participated as headache specialists with expertise in clinical practice, research, headache terminology and nosography, and/or headache epidemiology. GDA and SLR brought expertise in clinical research and/or headache terminology and nosography, and contributed to the project methodology.

Literature search and screening of records

Two authors (GDA and SLR), along with one other employee of Eli Lilly and Company outside the authoring team (AF – see acknowledgements), searched Embase and Medline for publications addressing any of migraine-attributed burden, impact or disability, and migraine-impacted quality of life, published from 1974 or 1946, respectively, up to May 2021. Details of the search terms and syntax are provided in Supplementary Material 1. Relevant reviews, editorials, concept papers and commentaries were identified from this search through the following procedures. Records were screened by GDA and SLR to remove duplicates and select those including the terms “burden”, “impact”, “disability” and/or “quality of life” in the title and/or abstract. From their full texts, publications were selected that focused on any of these associated with migraine. Primary research publications, and papers focused on financial cost (at individual or societal levels), on comorbidities of migraine as predictors of disability or burden rather than migraine itself, or on validation of scales, were excluded as outside the scope of our study. Uncertainties were resolved by discussion and agreement between these authors.

Selected papers were reviewed in full by GDA and SLR. Each was screened for descriptions of migraine-attributed burden, impact and disability, and migraine-impacted quality of life. Listings were generated, per paper and per concept, of the topics referenced as part of each concept’s description, and findings were summarised, per concept, as lists and frequencies of across all selected papers.

Formulation of definitions

We used the widely accepted Delphi method (15) to achieve consensus between all eight authors. Since the covid-19 pandemic prevented travel, we met virtually and conducted rounds by email.

For the first round, lists of candidate items identified by GDA and SLR through the literature search and to be considered in the definitions of each concept were pre-circulated (Supplementary Material 2, Table S1). Each member of the expert panel scored each item with regards to correspondence to the concept in question (1: does not correspond; 2: relevant but not critical; 3: directly corresponds and critical) and to clarity (1: unclear; 2: needs revision; 3: clear). There was opportunity in this round to comment. Responses were sent to a facilitator (PF – see acknowledgements) outside the authoring team who anonymised them before sending to SLR for collation. Items were retained when there was >70% agreement on correspondence (including scores of 2 and 3), or otherwise omitted. This agreement level was closely aligned with the median threshold reported across 25 Delphi studies (16) and was used in a previous Delphi study to achieve consensus on another definition (17). Issues around clarity, and comments suggesting items that might be missing, were addressed by rephrasing and revising according to this feedback.

The second Delphi round presented proposed definitions, formulated by GDA and SLR, that best represented all authors’ expressed opinions. Participants responded “yes” or “no”, in agreement or otherwise with each proposed definition (Supplementary Material 2, Table S2). As in Round 1, responses were sent to a facilitator (PF – see acknowledgements) outside the authoring team who anonymised them before sending to SLR for collation. SLR shared the anonymised results with all authors.

In the third round, conducted as a virtual group discussion with follow-up email correspondence, dissenters in the second round (those responding “no”) justified and defended their responses in open forum to resolve disagreements through debate and thereby reach consensus (Supplementary Material 2, Table S3).

Results

Screening of records from the literature search

The initial search yielded 1,584 records. Screening of titles and abstracts reduced these to 280, of which 240 were excluded upon inspection of their full texts (Figure 1). From the texts or reference lists of 39 of the 40 remaining publications (full text was unavailable for one), an additional 7 relevant publications were identified. A total of 46 papers were therefore included in the analyses, published over 28 years (1994–2021) (3,7,8,18–60) (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Screening of records from the literature search.

Of these 46, 42 (91%), 36 (78%), 44 (96%) and 28 (61%) respectively offered descriptions of migraine-attributed burden, impact, and disability, and migraine-impacted quality of life. The descriptions were notably characterised by inconsistency and, to some extent, by confusion. Descriptions of migraine-attributed burden included references to impact, disability and quality of life in 45%, 74%, and 38% of cases respectively. This might be expected if burden is considered as an overarching construct, but the descriptions of migraine-attributed impact and disability and of migraine-impacted quality of life commonly included references to each other (Figure 2A), indicating conflation. Ambiguous terminology (for example, GBD’s use of “disability” for lost health, referred to earlier) was a major complicating factor. Overlap between concepts was clearly evident in the specific items ascribed to each concept in the various publications (Figure 2B).

Figure 2.

Concepts and topics (and frequencies thereof) referenced in the literature to describe migraine-attributed burden, impact, and disability, and migraine-impacted quality of life. (a) Publications referencing burden, impact, disability and/or quality of life as parts of each other’s descriptions and (b) Publications referencing specific topics in their descriptions of each concept. NA: Not Applicable; GBD: Global Burden of Disease (study); HRU: health resource utilisation; WHO ICF: World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.

Aside from conflation and overlap, publications ranged widely in item inclusion. For example, 62% of reviews that provided descriptions of migraine-attributed burden referred to “society”, whereas 24% referred to “interictal” as part of this concept. Among reviews that provided descriptions of migraine-attributed impact, 61% referred to “occupational or household work/career/employment”, whereas 39% referred to “society” as part of this concept. Among reviews that provided descriptions of migraine-attributed disability, 45% referred to “occupational or household work/career/employment”, whereas 9% referred to “environment” as part of this concept. Regarding migraine-impacted quality of life, 21% of reviews that provided descriptions of this concept referred to “ictal/migraine attack”, whereas 7% referred to “headache or attack frequency” as a part of this concept (Figure 2B).

Proposed definitions and descriptions

The second round of the Delphi process achieved >70% agreement (our predetermined target: see Methods) on all definitions (Supplementary Material 2, Table S2). In the third round, which led to 100% consensus on all, we recognised the need for definitions to be not only precise but also memorable, pursuing the purpose of obviating misunderstandings and future inconsistencies (Supplementary Material 2, Table S3). This led to development of concise definitions, each complemented with a detailed explanatory description (Table 1).

Table 1.

Final consensus definitions and detailed descriptions of the four concepts.

Concept	Definition	Detailed description
Migraine-attributed burden	The summation of all negative consequences of the disease or its diagnosis.	The negative consequences of the disease include those occurring during or between migraine attacks, some that are borne by others than those with the disease, some that are cumulative over time and some that outlast the currency of the disease. Some negative consequences for the person with the disease may arise from the diagnostic label rather than the disease itself.Migraine-attributed burden is consequently expressed at individual, interpersonal-social, and societal levels.
Migraine-attributed impact	The effect of the disease, or its diagnosis, on a specified aspect of life, health or wellbeing.	The disease, or its diagnosis, may affect:• the life, health, capabilities, aspirations, opportunities, work and production, prosperity, position in life, recreation or general wellbeing of the person with the disease;• relationships with others and the attitudes of those around them towards the person with the disease;• and, when multiplied by numbers of people with the disease, social groups, community, or society more generally.Migraine-attributed impact is a singular effect on any one of these. When there are effects on more than one, each is a separate impact, distinct from any other, although associations between them are highly likely.Depending on its nature, migraine-attributed impact may be transient, lasting and/or cumulative.
Migraine-attributed disability	Physical, cognitive and mental incapacities imposed by the disease.	Physical, cognitive and mental incapacities imposed by the disease are influenced (moderated or exacerbated) by the individual’s personal characteristics and expressed in the context of that individual’s environment, hindering, impairing or preventing participation in or completion of day-to-day activities as would be expected if the individual were free of the disease.Migraine-attributed disability is expressed at individual level.
Migraine-impacted quality of life	The subjective assessment by a person with the disease of their general wellbeing, position and prospects in life.	Subjective assessment by a person with the disease of their general wellbeing, position and prospects in life takes due account of all aspects of their health (including the disease) and of their physical, mental and social functional abilities.Migraine-impacted quality of life is expressed at individual level but may be summarised across populations. In either case, it has meaning only in comparison with normative values of quality of life.

Discussion

In this study we used a Delphi process achieving 100% consensus in formulating new definitions, each with complementary descriptions, of migraine-attributed burden, migraine-attributed impact, migraine-attributed disability and migraine-impacted quality of life. What was the need for these, and what purposes might they serve? We began by searching the literature addressing these constructs and concepts, finding it inconsistent and confused. Concepts were often conflated, and terminology used ambiguously or as though synonymous, while being fundamentally important in understanding how migraine affects people and populations (13). They are crucial in managing the disorder, in describing it, and in needs assessment informing healthcare policy and allocation of healthcare resources. Uncertainties in what they mean, and what they embrace, affect all of these adversely, while misinforming the development of treatments, the construction of patient-reported and other outcome measures, and clinical trial design. The benefits of clear and unambiguous definitions should accrue to all of these.

Migraine-attributed burden

We continued to view migraine-attributed burden as an overarching construct, subsuming migraine-attributed impact(s) and disability, and migraine-impacted quality of life. Several features of our definition, and the accompanying description, call for comment. First, there are negative consequences contributing to burden that arise not from the disease itself but from carrying its diagnosis. The latter are due in part to stigma, but there is burden simply in being a patient, in need of healthcare that must be sought (patienthood) (13). Second, migraine-attributed burden arises both ictally and interictally, in the former case, and to some extent the latter, varying between individuals according to frequency, duration and severity of attacks. Third, there are negative consequences of migraine that are cumulative, and which may outlast the currency of the disease: missed opportunities in education, damaged prospects, lack of fulfilment in career or family (13). Fourth, there are negative consequences of the disease borne by others than those who have it, who are in the social environments (family, friends, colleagues, schools, employers) of those who have it (13). Fifth, some aspects of burden fall on society itself: the opportunity costs of resource expenditure on treating the disease, and the societal losses due to workforce diminution and reduced Gross Domestic Product.

While burden as a construct embraces all negative consequences of the disease, and is defined as the summation of these, there are challenges that are likely to remain insuperable in recognising them all, and in measuring many of those that are recognisable. A single metric wholly quantifying burden is not feasible, either at individual or at population level. While GBD makes a valiant effort at quantifying lost health attributable to migraine (which in future iterations may be expressed as healthy life years [HLYs] lost rather than YLDs), its estimates are based on time in symptomatic state: it does not capture interictal burden, cumulative burden or burden falling on others (61).

Migraine-attributed impact

Our definition and description of migraine-attributed impact similarly acknowledge contributions both from the disease itself and from its diagnosis. Crucially, migraine-attributed impact is a singular effect on a singular aspect of life, health or wellbeing, and the term has no meaning unless the latter is specified. Migraine may and often does have multiple effects on many of these aspects, either simultaneously or in temporal sequence, but it is essential to the concept that each of these is a separate impact, distinct from any other (although associations between them are highly likely). Like burden, some impacts are experienced not so much by the person with migraine but by others, through their relationships with and attitudes towards that person. Like burden, some impacts – on education, employment, or family life, for example – are lasting or cumulative, fully expressed only in future outcomes. At the societal level, there are impacts on healthcare demand and supply, and on workforce productivity and economy.

Because impact is a singular effect, it is, potentially, much more readily measurable – in the units that quantify whatever aspect of life, health or wellbeing is impacted (so long as this is itself measurable). Migraine-attributed impact on productivity, for example, can be and often is quantified as lost productive time, but it could also be measured in units of output.

Migraine-attributed disability

Our definition and description of migraine-attributed disability recognise that physical, cognitive and/or mental incapacities are imposed by the disease. Further, our description acknowledges that these incapacities are influenced by the individual’s personal characteristics, and are expressed in the context of that individual’s environment (62). Incapacities may be imposed during the attack, directly by the symptoms of it (pain, visual disturbances and photophobia in particular), or between attacks, for example by interictal anxiety leading to the disability imposed by avoidance behaviour.

Unlike burden and impact, disability is expressed only at individual level. Because of its multifaceted nature and the influences of personal characteristics and environment, migraine-attributed disability is not readily measured and, like burden, cannot be quantified by a single metric. YLDs, as noted earlier, are a measure of lost health rather than disability. The World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (WHO ICF) is a system for describing disease-attributed disability taking account of personal characteristics and environment, but requiring complex question sets (62). No such set exists for migraine, although the methodology for creating one has been described (63).

Disability translates into secondary impacts: undone day-to-day activities; missed work or schooling; undischarged household, community or societal responsibilities; abandoned social activities or recreational endeavours; interrupted care for children and family members. All of these become parts of migraine-attributed burden (13), but they are not, themselves, any part of migraine-attributed disability.

Migraine-impacted quality of life

There is a certain tautology about migraine-impacted quality of life, since, as the term implies, it is the consequence of an impact. Conceptually, however, it has unique importance among the many components of migraine-attributed burden, deserving of recognition per se. Our definition and description recognise three distinctions from the concepts of impact and disability. First, it is wholly subjective, and therefore not externally verifiable. Second, it is an evaluation not of the impact itself but of the remnant after it (what is left, not what is taken away). Third, it is an assessment of what is, taking account of the disease as only one among all factors of influence, not of what might be were it not for the disease: at individual level, it makes, or should make, no direct attribution to migraine (no sound basis exists for doing this). For this last reason, it has meaning only in comparison with normative values. It may be summarised across populations, and in large groups the difference between means of normative and migraine-impacted values can be fairly attributed to the disease.

Strengths and limitations

One limitation of this work was the small number of experts contributing to these definitions and descriptions. Another was that people with migraine were not involved or consulted. The major strength is that the definitions and descriptions were formulated to be relevant to care, research and health policy.

Next steps

We recognise that these definitions are a starting point. The next steps require broader input to assess their comprehensibility, acceptability and comprehensiveness. Using different methodologies, these steps must involve experts from other parts of the world – in headache medicine and in public health – and be informed by the views of people who bear the burden of migraine. Alignment across these various constituencies, once achieved, will provide a far better basis than we have now for scrutinising the available instruments, and establishing just how well they measure what they claim to on the one hand and what matters on the other.

Conclusions

The literature in the field of migraine shows inconsistencies, conflation, overlap and confusion in the terminology used to describe migraine-attributed burden and components of it expressed as migraine-attributed impact, migraine-attributed disability and migraine-impacted quality of life. Our definitions and complementary descriptions, arrived at by expert consensus, are a starting point in fostering consistency in the future. Ultimately, the benefits should be expressed in more appropriate use of currently available quantifying instruments and the future development of others, with better care and monitoring of patients, less ambiguity in clinical and epidemiological research, and more reliably informed health policy.

Public health relevance

The literature describing migraine-attributed burden is inconsistent in its use of “burden”, “disability”, “impact” and “quality of life”, often conflating their underlying concepts.

These inconsistencies have intruded into quantifying instruments, so that needs assessment, and health policy are unreliably informed.

Consensus definitions and detailed descriptions of these terms, formulated through a Delphi process, are offered as a future remedy.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-cep-10.1177_03331024221110102 - Supplemental material for Migraine-attributed burden, impact and disability, and migraine-impacted quality of life: Expert consensus on definitions from a Delphi process

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-cep-10.1177_03331024221110102 for Migraine-attributed burden, impact and disability, and migraine-impacted quality of life: Expert consensus on definitions from a Delphi process by Timothy J Steiner, Gisela M Terwindt, Zaza Katsarava, Patricia Pozo-Rosich, Andreas R Gantenbein, Sarah L Roche, Grazia Dell’Agnello and Cristina Tassorelli in Cephalalgia

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-2-cep-10.1177_03331024221110102 - Supplemental material for Migraine-attributed burden, impact and disability, and migraine-impacted quality of life: Expert consensus on definitions from a Delphi process

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-cep-10.1177_03331024221110102 for Migraine-attributed burden, impact and disability, and migraine-impacted quality of life: Expert consensus on definitions from a Delphi process by Timothy J Steiner, Gisela M Terwindt, Zaza Katsarava, Patricia Pozo-Rosich, Andreas R Gantenbein, Sarah L Roche, Grazia Dell’Agnello and Cristina Tassorelli in Cephalalgia

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Angeles Flores, an employee of Eli Lilly and Company, and Daniela Gödderz, an employee of Executive Insight, for their support with the literature search. We also thank Janet Ford, an employee of Eli Lilly and Company, for support with development of an earlier version of this article and with formulating the input to Delphi Rounds 1 and 2. We are grateful for contributions from David Ayer and Philana Fernandes, employees of Eli Lilly and Company, in, respectively, providing support with formulating the input to Delphi Rounds 1 and 2 and anonymising responses.

Availability of data and materials

Details of the literature search strategies can be found in Supplementary Material 1.

Authors' contributions

All authors contributed to the conception or design of the work. TJS, GMT, PPR, ARG, SLR, GDA and CT contributed to the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the work. All authors contributed to drafting of the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: TJS reports personal fees from Eli Lilly. GMT reports consultant fees from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis and Teva, and has received grant support from the Dutch Research Council, Dutch-Brain Foundation, the Dutch Heart Foundation, IRRF, and Dioraphte. ZK has been a speaker and/or consultant, and/or received research support from Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, Eli Lilly, Merck and Teva. PPR has received honoraria as a consultant and speaker for Allergan/AbbVie, Almirall, Biohaven, Chiesi, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Medlink, Medscape, Novartis and Teva. Her research group has received research grants from Allergan/AbbVie, AGAUR, la Caixa foundation, EraNET Neuron, FEDER RIS3CAT, Migraine Research Foundation, Instituto Investigación Carlos III, MICINN, Novartis, Teva, and PERIS, and has received funding for clinical trials from Alder, Amgen, Electrocore, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis and Teva. She is the founder of , the Honorary Secretary of the International Headache Society. She is on the editorial board of Revista de Neurologia, an associate editor for Cephalalgia, Headache, Neurologia, Frontiers of Neurology and advisor for The Journal of Headache and Pain. She is also a member of the Clinical Trials Guidelines Committee and Scientific Committee of the International Headache Society and has edited the Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Headache of the Spanish Neurological Society. ARG reports financial support for speaking, consultancies, education, research, or travel from Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen, Biomed, Curatis, Eli Lilly, Grünenthal, Lundbeck, Novartis, Teva Pharma. SLR is a full-time employee of Eli Lilly and Company. GDA is a full-time employee and minor stockholder of Eli Lilly and Company. CT received honoraria for the participation in advisory boards or for lecturing from: Allergan/Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Teva and Medscape. Her Institution has received payments for clinical trials for Allergan/Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis and Teva. CT has no ownership interest and does not own stocks of any pharmaceutical company. CT is on the editorial board of The Journal of Headache and Pain and Cephalalgia. TJS, GMT, ZK, PPR, ARG and CT did not receive fees from Eli Lilly for the activity related to this manuscript.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by Eli Lilly and Company.

ORCID iDs

Patricia Pozo-Rosich

Andreas R Gantenbein

Cristina Tassorelli

References

Woldeamanuel

Cowan

RP.

Migraine affects 1 in 10 people worldwide featuring recent rise: A systematic review and meta-analysis of community-based studies involving 6 million participants. J Neurological Sci 2017; 372: 307–315.

Steiner

Stovner

Katsarava

, et al. The impact of headache in Europe: principal results of the Eurolight project. J Headache Pain 2014; 15: 31.

Leonardi

Raggi

A narrative review on the burden of migraine: when the burden is the impact on people's life. J Headache Pain 2019; 20: 41.

Adams

Serrano

Buse

, et al. The impact of chronic migraine: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study methods and baseline results. Cephalalgia 2015; 35: 563–578.

Lipton

Manack Adams

Buse

, et al. A Comparison of the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study and American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study: Demographics and Headache-Related Disability. Headache 2016; 56: 1280–1289.

Buse

Fanning

Reed

, et al. Life with migraine: Effects on relationships, career, and finances from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study. Headache 2019; 59: 1286–1299.

Agosti

Migraine burden of disease: From the patient's experience to a socio-economic view. Headache 2018; 58: 17–32.

Steiner

Stovner

Jensen

, et al, on behalf of Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache. Migraine remains second among the world’s causes of disability, and first among young women: findings from GBD2019. J Headache Pain 2020; 21: 137.

GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2018; 392: 1789–1858.

10.

GBD 2016 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 2017; 390: 1211–1259.

11.

The Global Burden of Disease. A critical resource for informed policymaking, https://www.healthdata.org/gbd/about (accessed January 2022).

12.

Murray

Ezzati

Flaxman

, et al. GBD 2010: design, definitions, and metrics. Lancet 2012; 380: 2063–2066.

13.

Steiner

Gururaj

Andree

, et al. Diagnosis, prevalence estimation and burden measurement in population surveys of headache: presenting the HARDSHIP questionnaire. J Headache Pain 2014; 15: 3.

14.

Stovner

Al Jumah

Birbeck

, et al. The methodology of population surveys of headache prevalence, burden and cost: principles and recommendations from the Global Campaign against Headache. J Headache Pain 2014; 15: 5.

15.

Dalkey

NC.

An experimental study of group opinion: The Delphi Method. Futures 1969; 1: 408–426.

16.

Diamond

Grant

Feldman

, et al. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67: 401–409.

17.

Vogel

Zwolinsky

Griffiths

, et al. A Delphi study to build consensus on the definition and use of big data in obesity research. Int J Obes (Lond) 2019; 43: 2573–2586.

18.

Dahlof

Solomon

GD.

The burden of migraine to the individual sufferer: a review. Eur J Neurol 1998; 5: 525–533.

19.

Diamond

The impact of migraine on the health and well-being of women. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2007; 16: 1269–1280.

20.

Diener

Solbach

Holle

, et al. Integrated care for chronic migraine patients: epidemiology, burden, diagnosis and treatment options. Clin Med (Lond) 2015; 15: 344–350.

21.

Diener

Steiner

Tepper

SJ.

Migraine – the forgotten epidemic: development of the EHF/WHA Rome Declaration on Migraine. J Headache Pain 2006; 7: 433–437.

22.

Dowson

AJ.

Assessing the impact of migraine. Curr Med Res Opin 2001; 17: 298–309.

23.

Holmes

MacGregor

Dodick

Migraine-related disability: impact and implications for sufferers' lives and clinical issues. Neurology 2001; 56: S13–19.

24.

Lanteri-Minet

Duru

Mudge

, et al. Quality of life impairment, disability and economic burden associated with chronic daily headache, focusing on chronic migraine with or without medication overuse: a systematic review. Cephalalgia 2011; 31: 837–850.

25.

Leonardi

Migraine and disability: WHO's work to measure functioning, disability and health and the Global Burden of Diseases Study. J Headache Pain 2003; 4: s12–s17.

26.

Leonardi

Burden of migraine: what should we say more?

Neurol Sci 2015; 36: 1–3.

27.

Leonardi

Raggi

Burden of migraine: international perspectives. Neurol Sci 2013; 34: S117–118.

28.

Leonardi

Steiner

Scher

, et al. The global burden of migraine: measuring disability in headache disorders with WHO's Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). J Headache Pain 2005; 6: 429–440.

29.

Lipton

Stewart

Goadsby

PJ.

Headache-related disability in the management of migraine. Neurology 2001; 56: S1–3.

30.

Lipton

Stewart

Scher

AI.

Epidemiology and economic impact of migraine. Curr Med Res Opin 2001; 17: s4–12.

31.

Loder

Sheikh

Loder

The prevalence, burden, and treatment of severe, frequent, and migraine headaches in US minority populations: statistics from National Survey studies. Headache 2015; 55: 214–228.

32.

Manack

Buse

Lipton

RB.

Chronic migraine: epidemiology and disease burden. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2011; 15: 70–78.

33.

Martelletti

Migraine disability complicated by medication overuse. Eur J Neurol 2018; 25: 1193–1194.

34.

Patel

Barnhart

Konkol

, et al. Treatment of migraine: a review of disease burden and an update on the therapeutic landscape for pharmacists. Drugs & Therapy Perspectives 2021; 37: 75–86.

35.

Peng

Wang

SJ.

Migraine diagnosis: screening items, instruments, and scales. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan 2012; 50: 69–73.

36.

Reuter

GBD 2016: still no improvement in the burden of migraine. Lancet Neurol 2018; 17: 929–930.

37.

Rich

SJ.

Burden of migraine and impact of emerging therapies on managed care. Am J Manag Care 2019; 25: S35–S39.

38.

Saylor

Steiner

TJ.

The Global Burden of Headache. Semin Neurol 2018; 38: 182–190.

39.

Smitherman

Burch

Sheikh

, et al. The prevalence, impact, and treatment of migraine and severe headaches in the United States: a review of statistics from national surveillance studies. Headache 2013; 53: 427–436.

40.

Solomon

Santanello

Impact of migraine and migraine therapy on productivity and quality of life.

Neurology 2000; 55: S29–35.

41.

Stang

Cady

Batenhorst

, et al. Workplace productivity. A review of the impact of migraine and its treatment. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19: 231–244.

42.

Steiner

TJ.

Headache burdens and bearers. Funct Neurol 2000; 15: 219–223.

43.

Steiner

TJ.

Lifting The Burden: the global campaign to reduce the burden of headache worldwide. J Headache Pain 2005; 6: 373–377.

44.

Steiner

Birbeck

Jensen

, et al. Lifting the burden: the first 7 years. J Headache Pain 2010; 11: 451–455.

45.

Steiner

Stovner

Birbeck

GL.

Migraine: the seventh disabler. J Headache Pain 2013; 14: 1.

46.

Steiner

Stovner

Vos

GBD 2015: migraine is the third cause of disability in under 50s. J Headache Pain 2016; 17: 104.

47.

Steiner

Stovner

Vos

, et al. Migraine is first cause of disability in under 50s: will health politicians now take notice? J Headache Pain 2018; 19: 17.

48.

Stewart

Lipton

RB.

The economic and social impact of migraine. Eur Neurol 1994; 34: 12–17.

49.

Takeshima

Wan

Zhang

, et al. Prevalence, burden, and clinical management of migraine in China, Japan, and South Korea: a comprehensive review of the literature. J Headache Pain 2019; 20: 111.

50.

Torres-Ferrus

Alpuente

Pozo-Rosich

How much do calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies improve the quality of life in migraine? A patient's perspective. Curr Opin Neurol 2019; 32: 395–404.

51.

Willheim

The societal impact of migraine. Acta Clin Croat 1997; 36: 20–23.

52.

Andrasik

Assessing migraine disability. Cephalalgia 1999; 19: 74.

53.

Bigal

Lipton

Stewart

WF.

The epidemiology and impact of migraine. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2004; 4: 98–104.

54.

Brandes

JL.

The migraine cycle: patient burden of migraine during and between migraine attacks. Headache 2008; 48: 430–441.

55.

Burch

Buse

Lipton

RB.

Migraine: Epidemiology, Burden, and Comorbidity. Neurol Clin 2019; 37: 631–649.

56.

Burton

Landy

Downs

, et al. The impact of migraine and the effect of migraine treatment on workplace productivity in the United States and suggestions for future research. Mayo Clin Proc 2009; 84: 436–445.

57.

Buse

Lipton

RB.

Global perspectives on the burden of episodic and chronic migraine. Cephalalgia 2013; 33: 885–890.

58.

Buse

Rupnow

MFT

Lipton

RB.

Assessing and managing all aspects of migraine: migraine attacks, migraine-related functional impairment, common comorbidities, and quality of life. Mayo Clinic Proceed 2009; 84: 422–435.

59.

D'Amico

Grazzi

Usai

, et al. Disability in chronic daily headache: state of the art and future directions. Neurol Sci 2011; 32: S71–76.

60.

Dahlof

CG.

Measuring disability and quality of life in migraine. Drugs Today (Barc) 2003; 39: 17–23.

61.

WHO. WHO methods and data sources for global burden of disease estimates 2000–2019. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/gho-documents/global-health-estimates/ghe2019_daly-methods.pdf?sfvrsn=31b25009_7 (accessed June 2022).

62.

WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health (accessed January 2022).

63.

Steiner

Stovner

. Headache, Functional Impact and Environment. In: Steiner

Stovner

, editors Societal Impact of Headache: Burden, Costs and Response. Cham: Springer International Publishing 2019; 143–56.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB

0.27 MB

Migraine-attributed burden,impact and disability,and migraine-impacted quality of life: Expert consensus on definitions from a Delphi process

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Panel of experts

Literature search and screening of records

Formulation of definitions

Results

Screening of records from the literature search

Proposed definitions and descriptions

Discussion

Migraine-attributed burden

Migraine-attributed impact

Migraine-attributed disability

Migraine-impacted quality of life

Strengths and limitations

Next steps

Conclusions

Public health relevance

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-cep-10.1177_03331024221110102 - Supplemental material for Migraine-attributed burden, impact and disability, and migraine-impacted quality of life: Expert consensus on definitions from a Delphi process

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-2-cep-10.1177_03331024221110102 - Supplemental material for Migraine-attributed burden, impact and disability, and migraine-impacted quality of life: Expert consensus on definitions from a Delphi process

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Availability of data and materials

Authors' contributions

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References

Supplementary Material