AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2637-8892/025
Department of Psychological Medicine, Zahraa University Hospital, Nigeria.
*Corresponding Author: Ahmed Shawki, Department of Psychological Medicine, Zahraa University Hospital, Nigeria.
Citation: Ahmed Shawki, Clinical practice of Headache: The Patient’s Education. J. Psychology and Mental Health Care 2(2); DOI: 10.31579/2637-8892/025
Copyright: © 2018 Ahmed Shawki. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 30 March 2018 | Accepted: 20 April 2018 | Published: 25 May 2018
Keywords: headache; referral; diagnostic imaging; anxiety; emergency medical services
Introduction: Headache is the commonest reason for neurology referrals, and the commonest neurological reason for patients attending Emergency Departments (EDs). An ethical approach to health care requires that patients be provided with informed choice about management. However researchers have not addressed patients’ concerns and choices in managing headache. This study aims to describe the views of patients, their fears, use of EDs, their perceived need for a scan and its outcome for them.
Methods: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 19 adults aged 23-63, referred by Family Practitioners (FPs) to neurologists for primary headaches approximately two years previously. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically.
Results: Participants described fears about secondary organic causes for headache, like a brain tumor. They described their headaches as stressful, and leading to a vicious cycle of fear. Many believed they needed a brain scan and requested it. Participants reported relief of their fears after a scan, and in some cases relief of headache symptoms.
Discussion: UK FPs now have open access to brain scanning, which may relieve physical concerns. Interventions to address health-related anxiety may also help some consulters for headache.
In the diagnosis and management of patients, doctors are asked to respect four principles, to:- provide patients with informed choice (autonomy), cause no harm (non-malificence), do good (beneficence), and promote justice, which includes fair, cost-effective allocation of scarce resources [1]. The last principle is salient in most western countries where health care is funded as a public service. Guidelines for physicians tend to focus on management with medicines [2]. How to apply the principles to decisions like investigation and referral to specialists is under-investigated and challenging, particularly for doctors presented with headache.
It has been argued that scanning patients for headache, whether it is by computer tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may do more harm than good [3]. Incidental findings are common, particularly with MRI, occurring in 2% of scans of people with no neurological symptoms [4]. When patients consult a primary care physician for an undifferentiated headache, the 1-year risk of a malignant brain tumour is 0.15%, rising to 0.28
Design
This qualitative study, which was nested in a prospective cohort study, sought to provide a detailed knowledge of the views and experiences of patients with headache who had been referred by their FP to a neurologist. Qualitative methods were ideally suited for such hitherto unexplored research topics as participants are able to raise what they personally regard as important aspects and concerns rather than these being specified in advance by the researcher. The South-East Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee approved the study (MREC01/01/032). Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Recruitment: Participants were recruited from a cohort of 48 adults (aged > 18 yrs) with headache who were prospectively recruited after they had been referred by their FP in the south of England to a neurologist for headache.[11] This mean age of participants in this sample was 41and 64% % were female. We slightly over-sampled men given their smaller numbers in the cohort and selected individuals with a similar age distribution as the cohort. These patients were approached by letter to participate in this interview study with a response slip. A follow-up phone call was made to non-responders.
Data collection: Semi-structured interviews undertaken by a researcher independent of the cohort study (LJ), lasted on average 45 minutes, and were conducted in a location of the participant's choice. A topic guide was used to frame the interviews. This was developed on the basis of themes identified from the literature and refined through open interviews.
The main themes covered were patients’ experience of having a headache disorder and its impact on their lives, including their fears and concerns; their use of hospital Emergency Departments, whether they had been referred for a scan, how this had occurred and how helpful this had been. Interviews were conducted on average two years after referral to a neurologist to provide a long term perspective. Participants were encouraged to talk freely and the interviewer probed and prompted responses as required. Information of the participants’ headache diagnosis was from the database of information collected for the cohort study in which these people had previously participated. [11].
Data analysis: Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were entered into NVivo 9 a computerized qualitative analysis package. FN read each transcript line-by-line and generated codes through open coding. These codes were then categorized thematically and relationships between themes were identified through a process of constant comparison, with particular reference to explanations for patients’ decision making and the beliefs and experiences of ‘deviant cases’. LR, AN and MM reviewed the codes and categories and discussed emerging interpretations.
Sample Characteristics
A total of 19 people comprising 8 men and 11 women were interviewed (Table 1). Thirteen had been categorized as having migraine, three chronic daily headaches and three as ‘other headache’.
Analysis of the transcripts provided insights into patients’ fears about the cause of their headache and the implications that this had for their use of different health care services. Three key themes were identified. These were: headache-related fears and use of emergency departments; perceived need for a scan; and the outcome of a scan in terms of perceived reassurance. Quotations are presented to illustrate themes.
Headache-related fears and use of Emergency Departments
Patients generally identified fear about what their headache might mean as a key issue prompting service use. One patient mentioned her worry and anxiety reaching up to a point: ‘It’s a, what’s called a tipping point really I think, you know if you think of catastrophe theory that something will grow up to that point and suddenly it will tip.’ (P.12, Female, 47).
For 3/19 participants, severe headaches made them resort to Emergency Department (ED) visits to a hospital after they had seen the FP. One said: ‘the one that was really frightening I ended up in X Hospital because it developed into what I thought that I might have been having a heart attack, because I was so worried about the headache’. (P.5, Male, 50).
Continuous headache also led relatives to act on the patient’s behalf. One said: ‘it was like a continuous thing every weekend…my parents would take me up the hospital, thinking there was something wrong, and what it was, was migraine.’ (P.6, Male, 23).
Perceived need for a scan
Worry about a serious medical problem led ten participants to ask their doctor for a brain scan. Altogether eight of these patients received a scan subsequently. Before the scan, these patients described consistent fear of a possible physical cause, mainly a brain tumour. Patients described their headache as not reducing after advice given by their FP, and believed they needed to persist to get their doctor to arrange scan.
‘...I wanted to be treated. I wanted somebody to tell me that I wasn’t gonna have a brain tumour and fall down dead.’ ‘...But I actually found I had to push for a scan, I had to insist on it almost, and yet that was the thing that had been the most worrying right from the very beginning... I had to insist on something, something physical being done.’ (P13, Female, 38).
These patients generally explained that they had been referred for a scan for peace of mind: ‘Yes because I got so worried because it had gone on for so long and they said we’ll send you for one for peace of mind, we’re saying we know there’s no problem up there, but for peace of mind for you we’ll send you for one.’ (P.7, Female, 54)
An additional three participants who had been referred and seen a neurologist reported having brain scans that were initiated at the request of a neurologist, rather than themselves.
The outcome of a scan in terms of perceived reassurance
Following the scan, 6/8 of the participants who reported asking for a scan, stated that their anxiety, stress, and worry had reduced considerably, and described themselves as ‘relaxing a bit’. Three of these patients reported that normal results from the scan reduced their headache symptoms also: ‘But I think I had the scan to put my mind at rest. I knew that there was nothing serious about it. But perhaps even that may have made the fact that it’s tailed off, you know, sort of eased it on its way sort of thing.’ (P19, Female, 63).
After the scan one participant reported the headaches diminished to such an extent they were no longer consulting their doctor.
Summary of main findings
We found most people with headache who were referred for a scan described fears about a physical cause for their headaches, in particular a brain tumor. Patients believed they had needed to put pressure on their doctors to get a referral for a scan. They typically described feeling relieved after a normal scan, with one reporting alleviation of headache symptoms altogether. After a scan most felt they had the confidence to use other strategies to manage their headache.
Strengths and limitations of this study
This qualitative study consisted of interviews with men and women recruited from a large cohort of patients who had been referred for headaches about two years earlier [11]. It is one of few qualitative studies to explore patients’ ideas and experiences about headache [13]. It is the only one we know to explore patients’ views about their role in decision-making about referral and investigation by a neurologist. It was not large, and no participants reported scans leading to incidental findings which might potentially increase their anxiety.
Relationship to other studies
We previously interviewed FPs to determine their views of reasons for referral, and found they felt patients pressured for a scan mostly because of fears of an organic cause [12]. Some of our participants described a cycle of worry which included visits to the ED. Headache is a common neurological reason for ED visits, which is something health services planners are seeking to reduce owing to their high cost. After scanning our participants reported their fears were reduced, and sometimes their headache symptoms too. These findings add depth to evidence from a trial which found that scans do not on average increase patients’ fears [14]. In this trial the fears of those scanned were reduced after 3 months [14]. Health services for patients who were randomized to no scan cost more, as those denied scans were more likely to have visited another neurologist, with up to a third being given a scan later [14].
It has been suggested that up to a third of patients referred to neurologists, particularly those with headache have symptoms unexplained by organic disease [15], with an implication that addressing health anxiety is important also. Some of the participants in this study described health anxiety, and some resorted to visiting the hospital on an emergency basis. There is evidence that, in addition to conventional therapy, relaxation, behavioural and cognitive-behavioural management may help people with headache and migraine, particularly when it is associated with anxiety [2,16,17].
Implications for clinical practice and research
If doctors wish to respect patient autonomy, our evidence suggests some patients choose a scan. Communication about the likelihood of negative results, false positives results and cost, would also contribute to informed consent. Our participants were interviewed an average of two years after referral to a neurologist. They reported a negative result had helped relieve their fears, and move on to self-management. Open access to brain scanning for doctors working in primary care may reduce anxiety, reduce cost and increase access to neurologists for other patients. More research is required to determine whether patients with health-anxiety, who are additionally offered relaxation and cognitive-behavioural can reduce headache and improve quality of life. We are currently exploring this by means of a trial (NIHR PB-PG-0610-22373).
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
