4.7 Article

Validity of the ID-Migraine screener in the workplace

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 70, Issue 16, Pages 1337-1345

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000309221.85545.0d

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The impact of migraine on physical, social, and emotional performance is considerable, yet it remains an underdiagnosed disorder. ID-Migraine is a validated migraine-screening tool developed to facilitate diagnosis. This study evaluated the validity and use of the Turkish version of the ID-Migraine screener ( ID-Ms) in the workplace, and measured the impact of headache on disability, productivity, and quality of life among the workforce. Methods: A total of 465 employees from four companies were interviewed for screening with the ID-Ms. Subjects were included in the study if they reported two or more headaches in the past 3 months and gave a positive answer to one of the two ID-Ms prescreening questions. Eligible subjects completed the ID-Ms, the Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire, and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. Subjects were then evaluated for confirmation of their diagnosis according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edition ( ICHD-2) criteria. Results: A total of 227 subjects ( mean age 31.9 +/- 5.9 years; 65.6% women) completed the study. Migraine was diagnosed in 106 of the 227 subjects ( 46.7%) according to the ID-Ms and in 117 of the 227 subjects ( 51.5%) according to ICHD-2 criteria. The sensitivity of the ID-Ms was 70.9%, specificity was 79.1% and Cohen kappa value was 0.50. Workdays lost over the previous 3 months due to headache amounted to 8.7 +/- 9.5 days for migraine-positive and 4.9 +/- 6.6 days for migraine-negative subjects. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the ID-Migraine screener is a valid tool for identifying subjects with migraine in the workplace.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available