Devising and validating a headache diary in a series of patients with chronic daily headache from Colombia

Abstract

Objective: To devise and test the reliability and validity of a brief headache diary in a series of Colombian patients with chronic daily headache. Methods: The study was designed in five stages: selection of domains (group of patients and experts); initial devising of the items (writing group); identification of non-understandable items (n=20); assessment of internal consistency (n=100); assessment of validity and assessment of sensitivity to change during seven consecutive days (n=25, 175 observations). Results: Five domains were selected: headache presence, severity and length of pain, analgesics intake, and missing workdays. The headache diary is internally consistent (≈75% of rotated variance), correlates with the medical interview (Spearman's rho and Kendall's tau over 0.8 for each domain) and it has an adequate and stable sensitivity and specificity (82 to 96%). Conclusions: This headache diary is a reliable and valid instrument and represents the most important features affecting Colombian patients with chronic daily headache.Key words: Colombia, diagnosis, headache disorders, medical records, reproducibility of results, validation studies. resumenObjetivo: Diseñar y testar la validez y reproducibilidad de un diario de cefalea en una serie de pacientes Colombianos con cefalea crónica diaria. Métodos: El estudio fue diseñado en cinco fases: selección de los dominios (grupo de pacientes y expertos); diseño inicial de los ítems (grupo redactor); identificación de ítems no comprensibles (n=20); determinación de la consistencia interna (n=100); determinación de la validez y la sensibilidad al cambio durante siete días consecutivos (n=25, 175 observaciones). Resultados: Fueron seleccionados cinco dominios: presencia, severidad y duración del dolor, ingesta de analgésicos y días laborales perdidos. El diario tiene una adecuada consistencia interna (≈75% de la varianza), se correlaciona con la entrevista médica (rho de Spearman y tau de Kendall >0.8 para cada dominio) y tiene sensibilidad y especificidad estables y satisfactorias (82 a 96%). Conclusiones: Este diario de cefalea es un instrumento confiable y registra las principales características de las cefaleas en pacientes con cefalea crónica diaria.Palabras-Clave: Colombia, diagnóstico, cefalea, registros médicos, reproducibilidad de resultados, estudios de validación.controls 5,6 . Several factors might affect the internal validity of studies in CDH patients, among them the lack of reliable measurement instruments.Lipton et al. defined CDH as headaches that occur for ≥4 hours a day on ≥15 days a month over three months 7 . In the next decade,

Are Ecological Momentary Assessments of Pain Valid and Reliable? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…Fourteen studies fulfilling the eligibility criteria were identified. [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] Reasons for exclusion included non-pain populations (n = 8), non-chronic populations (n = 5), no psychometric comparisons (n = 5), not EMA (n = 5), and conference abstracts without data (n = 6). All included studies were written in English.…”

“…39 The chronic pain conditions studied were osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, fibromyalgia, spinal cord injury, low back pain, generalized musculoskeletal pain, irritable bowel syndrome, and headache. [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] Ethnicity was not consistently reported; however, samples were mainly made up of Caucasian participants in studies that reported ethnicity details. Three studies were made up of a majority of Colombian 51 and Spanish 50 and 1 of Dutch 43 participants.…”

“…[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] Ethnicity was not consistently reported; however, samples were mainly made up of Caucasian participants in studies that reported ethnicity details. Three studies were made up of a majority of Colombian 51 and Spanish 50 and 1 of Dutch 43 participants.…”

“…Study measures are summarized in Table 1. EMA measures of pain intensity were collected using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, 40 the Visual Analog Scale, 50,51 and Gracely Box Scales. 52 Pain interference was measured using a momentary version of the pain interference subscales from the modified Brief Pain Inventory-short form (mBPI-SF) 50,53 and Patient-reported Outcome Measurement Information System-short form (PROMIS-SF).…”

Evaluation and improvement of healthcare quality in patients with headache attending physical therapy

“…Modificación de la metodología de trabajo: creación de un protocolo de atención al usuario con cefalea; aumento de 15 minutos en el tiempo dedicado a estos pacientes; dedicar un tiempo a la explicación de cómo realizar los ejercicios domiciliarios; entregar el primer día el cuestionario HIT-6 a cada paciente, el diario de cefalea 22 , la tabla de ejercicios, y la encuesta MedRisk 23 , además de acordar realizar sesiones clínicas cada 3 meses.…”