Advances in digital technology and mobile technology have led to an era where electronic and mobile approaches are applied to several aspects of healthcare. Electronic behavioral interventions for migraine seem to be acceptable and feasible, but efficacy measures are uncertain. Clinical trials on mHealth-based classical behavioral therapies, such as relaxation, biofeedback, and cognitive behavioral therapy are missing in the literature. Within mHealth, headache diaries are the most researched and scientifically developed. Still, there is a gap between commercially available apps and scientifically validated and developed apps. Digital technology and mobile health has not yet lived out its potential in behavioral migraine therapy. Application of proper usability and functionality designs towards the right market, together with appraisal of medical and technological recommendations, may facilitate rapid development of eHealth and mHealth, while also establishing scientific evidence.

CONTEXT: Migraine is a common problem in children and adolescents, but few satisfactory prophylactic treatments exist. OBJECTIVE:Our goal was to investigate the pooled evidence for the effectiveness of using biofeedback to reduce childhood migraine.DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted across the databases Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsychINFO.STUDY SELECTION: Prospective, randomized controlled trials of biofeedback for migraine among children and adolescents were located in the search.DATA EXTRACTION: Data on reduction of mean attack frequency and a series of secondary outcomes, including adverse events, were extracted. Risk of bias was also assessed.RESULTS: Forest plots were created by using a fixed effects model, and mean differences were reported. Five studies with a total of 137 participants met the inclusion criteria. Biofeedback reduced migraine frequency (mean difference, -1.97 [95% confidence interval (CI), -2.72 to -1.21]; P < .00001), attack duration (mean difference, -3.94 [95% CI, -5.57 to -2.31]; P < .00001), and headache intensity (mean difference, -1.77 [95% CI, -2.42 to -1.11]; P < .00001) compared with a waiting-list control. Biofeedback demonstrated no adjuvant effect when combined with other behavioral treatment; neither did it have significant advantages over active treatment. Only 40% of bias judgments were deemed as "low" risk. LIMITATIONS:Methodologic issues hampered the meta-analyses. Only a few studies were possible to include, and they suffered from incomplete reporting of data and risk of bias.CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback seems to be an effective intervention for pediatric migraine, but in light of the limitations, further investigation is needed to increase our confidence in the estimate.

Background The purpose of this narrative review is to examine the literature investigating a causal relationship between stress and migraine and evaluate its implications for managing migraine. Methods PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched from 1988 to August 2021, identifying 2223 records evaluating the relationship between stress and migraine. Records were systematically screened. All potentially relevant records were thematically categorized into six mechanistic groups. Within each group the most recent reports providing new insights were cited. Results First, studies have demonstrated an association of uncertain causality between high stress loads from stressful life events, daily hassles or other sources, and the incidence of new-onset migraine. Second, major stressful life events seem to precede the transformation from episodic to chronic migraine. Third, there is some evidence for changes in levels of stress as a risk factor for migraine attacks. Research also suggests there may be a reversed causality or that stress-trigger patterns are too individually heterogeneous for any generalized causality. Fourth, migraine symptom burden seems to increase in a setting of stress, partially driven by psychiatric comorbidity. Fifth, stress may induce sensitization and altered cortical excitability, partially explaining attack triggering, development of chronic migraine, and increased symptom burden including interictal symptom burden such as allodynia, photophobia or anxiety. Finally, behavioral interventions and forecasting models including stress variables seem to be useful in managing migraine. Conclusion The exact causal relationships in which stress causes incidence, chronification, migraine attacks, or increased burden of migraine remains unclear. Several individuals benefit from stress-oriented therapies, and such therapies should be offered as an adjuvant to conventional treatment and to those with a preference. Further understanding the relationship between stress, migraine and effective therapeutic options is likely to be improved by characterizing individual patterns of stress and migraine, and may in turn improve therapeutics.

Objective To investigate the effect size, safety, and tolerability of a therapist‐independent biofeedback treatment app among adolescent with migraine. Materials and Methods This was a prospective, 3:1 ratio randomized, sham‐controlled, double‐blind, pilot study with 16 adolescents diagnosed with migraine randomized to eight weeks of biofeedback treatment (n = 12) or sham biofeedback (n = 4), carried out at two university hospitals in Norway. The prespecified and primary objective of the study was to observe changes in outcomes within the active treatment group. The sham control group was included in a minor ratio primarily to evaluate its feasibility. The primary outcome was change in headache frequency. A modified intention to treat analysis was performed, including participants completing at least seven biofeedback sessions in weeks 1–4 (n = 12 vs. n = 4) and weeks 5–8 (n = 7 vs. n = 2). Results Adherence was poor with 40% (136/336) of planned biofeedback sessions completed during weeks 5–8. Within the biofeedback group, a not statistically significant reduction in headache frequency was observed at weeks 1–4 (2.92 days/month, 95% CI −1.00 to 6.84, p = .145) and weeks 5–8 (1.85 days/month, 95% CI −2.01 to 5.72, p = .395). The biofeedback group experienced a median of one fewer headache days/month versus sham that did not reach significance (95% CI −4.0 to 9.0, p = .760). Conclusions We observed a small reduction in headache frequency in the active treatment group. Findings were likely undermined by low adherence and underpowered analyses but indicate that a therapist‐independent biofeedback treatment app has the potential to be an effective, tolerable, and inexpensive treatment option.