4.5 Article

Migraine prevention: What patients want from medication and their physicians (a headache specialty clinic perspective)

期刊

HEADACHE
卷 46, 期 5, 页码 750-753

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00429.x

关键词

migraine; prevention; doctor-patient interaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective.-To document the results of a migraine patients survey, from a headache specialty clinic, in which patients were asked to rank, in order of importance, certain characteristics of migraine preventive treatment. Methods.-A 10-question survey was completed by 150 patients (114 females and 36 males) with a history of migraine who presented to the Michigan Head Pain & Neurological Institute. The patients were asked to rank, in order of importance, characteristics of migraine preventive treatment. Each characteristic was rated individually on a 1 to 10 scale (1 being of little importance and 10 being extremely important). The mean rating of each characteristic was then calculated and the results analyzed. Results/Discussion.-From this migraine preventive treatment survey, the most important thing to migraineurs, from a headache specialty clinic population, is that the prescribing physician involves them in the decision making of choosing a preventive agent. The physician taking time to explain the possible medication side effects is the second most highly ranked characteristic. Migraine preventives with published efficacy in the medical literature are also deemed very important. Migraineurs do not mind using more than 1 preventive agent at one time if greater efficacy can be achieved. Agents that may affect weight and/or cause sedation may be important factors as to why patients (especially females) may not want to take a preventive medication. Natural therapies and once-daily dosing are ranked lower overall but still are important characteristics of preventive treatment. Some gender differences are noted in the ranking of migraine preventive characteristics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据