The methodology of population surveys of headache prevalence, burden and cost: Principles and recommendations from the Global Campaign against Headache

The global burden of headache is very large, but knowledge of it is far from complete and needs still to be gathered. Published population-based studies have used variable methodology, which has influenced findings and made comparisons difficult. Among the initiatives of the Global Campaign against Headache to improve and standardize methods in use for cross-sectional studies, the most important is the production of consensus-based methodological guidelines. This report describes the development of detailed principles and recommendations. For this purpose we brought together an expert consensus group to include experience and competence in headache epidemiology and/or epidemiology in general and drawn from all six WHO world regions. The recommendations presented are for anyone, of whatever background, with interests in designing, performing, understanding or assessing studies that measure or describe the burden of headache in populations. While aimed principally at researchers whose main interests are in the field of headache, they should also be useful, at least in parts, to those who are expert in public health or epidemiology and wish to extend their interest into the field of headache disorders. Most of all, these recommendations seek to encourage collaborations between specialists in headache disorders and epidemiologists. The focus is on migraine, tension-type headache and medication-overuse headache, but they are not intended to be exclusive to these. The burdens arising from secondary headaches are, in the majority of cases, more correctly attributed to the underlying disorders. Nevertheless, the principles outlined here are relevant for epidemiological studies on secondary headaches, provided that adequate definitions can be not only given but also applied in questionnaires or other survey instruments

Headache yesterday in Karnataka state, India: prevalence, impact and cost

Background The Global Campaign against Headache has pioneered evaluation of the prevalence and impact of headache on the preceding day (“headache yesterday”) as a new approach to the estimation of headache-attributed burden, avoiding recall error. We report its application in Karnataka State, southern India. Methods In a door-to-door survey, biologically unrelated adults (aged 18–65 years) were randomly sampled from urban and rural areas in and around Bengaluru and interviewed by trained researchers using a validated, structured questionnaire. Enquiry into headache applied ICHD-II diagnostic criteria and included questions about headache on the day preceding the interview (headache yesterday [HY]). Results There were 2329 participants (participation proportion 92.6 %; males 1141 [49.0 %], females 1188 [51.0 %]; mean age 38.0 [±12.7] years; 1103 [47.4 %] from rural areas, 1226 [52.6 %] urban). HY was reported by 138 participants (males 33 [2.9 %], females 105 [8.8 %]): the 1-day prevalence of headache was 5.9 %. Mean duration of HY was 7.0 ± 8.5 h, so that 1.7 % of the population (5.9 % * 7.0/24), on average, had headache at any moment in time yesterday. Mean intensity on a scale of 1–3 was 2.0 [±0.8]. Lost productivity due to HY was reported by 83.3 % of participants with HY: 37.7 % able to do less than half of what they had planned and 13.0 % able to do nothing. Productivity loss at population level (being the productivity loss within the entire adult population, every single day, attributable to headache) was 3.0 %. Conclusions This method of enquiry, free from recall error, confirmed a very high level of headache-attributed burden in Karnataka: previous estimates based on 3-month recall may even have been too low. Until another study is done in the country, these are the best data for all India. They demonstrate need for action nationwide to mitigate this burden, and correct action will ultimately almost certainly be cost-saving.publishedVersion© 2016 The Author(s). Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

The burden of headache disorders in India: methodology and questionnaire validation for a community-based survey in Karnataka State

Primary headache disorders are a major public-health problem globally and, possibly more so, in low- and middle-income countries. No methodologically sound studies of prevalence and burden of headache in the adult Indian population have been published previously. The present study was a door-to-door cold-calling survey in urban and rural areas in and around Bangalore, Karnataka State. From 2,714 households contacted, 2,514 biologically unrelated individuals were eligible for the survey and 2,329 (92.9 %) participated (1,103 [48 %] rural; 1,226 [52 %] urban; 1,141 [49 %] male; 1,188 [51 %] female; mean age 38.0 years). The focus was on primary headache (migraine and tension-type headache [TTH]) and medication-overuse headache. A structured questionnaire administered by trained lay interviewers was the instrument both for diagnosis (algorithmically determined from responses) and burden estimation. The screening question enquired into headache in the last year. The validation study compared questionnaire-based diagnoses with those obtained soon after through personal interview by a neurologist in a random sub-sample of participants (n = 381; 16 %). It showed high values (>80 %) for sensitivity, specificity and predictive values for any headache, and for specificity and negative predictive value for migraine and TTH. Kappa values for diagnostic agreement were good for any headache (0.69 [95 % CI 0.61–0.76]), moderate (0.46 [0.35–0.56]) for migraine and fair (0.39 [0.29–0.49]) for TTH.The survey methodology, including identification of and access to participants, proved feasible. The questionnaire proved effective in the survey population. The study will give reliable estimates of the prevalence and burden of headache, and of migraine and TTH specifically, in urban and rural Karnataka

Chronic diseases and injuries in India.

Chronic diseases (eg, cardiovascular diseases, mental health disorders, diabetes, and cancer) and injuries are the leading causes of death and disability in India, and we project pronounced increases in their contribution to the burden of disease during the next 25 years. Most chronic diseases are equally prevalent in poor and rural populations and often occur together. Although a wide range of cost-effective primary and secondary prevention strategies are available, their coverage is generally low, especially in poor and rural populations. Much of the care for chronic diseases and injuries is provided in the private sector and can be very expensive. Sufficient evidence exists to warrant immediate action to scale up interventions for chronic diseases and injuries through private and public sectors; improved public health and primary health-care systems are essential for the implementation of cost-effective interventions. We strongly advocate the need to strengthen social and policy frameworks to enable the implementation of interventions such as taxation on bidis (small hand-rolled cigarettes), smokeless tobacco, and locally brewed alcohols. We also advocate the integration of national programmes for various chronic diseases and injuries with one another and with national health agendas. India has already passed the early stages of a chronic disease and injury epidemic; in view of the implications for future disease burden and the demographic transition that is in progress in India, the rate at which effective prevention and control is implemented should be substantially increased. The emerging agenda of chronic diseases and injuries should be a political priority and central to national consciousness, if universal health care is to be achieved

The Road Traffic Injuries Research Network: A decade of research capacity strengthening in low- and middle-income countries

� 2016 Hyder et al. Road traffic crashes have been an increasing threat to the wellbeing of road users worldwide; an unacceptably high number of people die or become disabled from them. While high-income countries have successfully implemented effective interventions to help reduce the burden of road traffic injuries (RTIs) in their countries, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have not yet achieved similar results. Both scientific research and capacity development have proven to be useful for preventing RTIs in high-income countries. In 1999, a group of leading researchers from different countries decided to join efforts to help promote research on RTIs and develop the capacity of professionals from LMICs. This translated into the creation of the Road Traffic Injuries Research Network (RTIRN) - a partnership of over 1,100 road safety professionals from 114 countries collaborating to facilitate reductions in the burden of RTIs in LMICs by identifying and promoting effective, evidenced-based interventions and supporting research capacity building in road safety research in LMICs. This article presents the work that RTIRN has done over more than a decade, including production of a dozen scientific papers, support of nearly 100 researchers, training of nearly 1,000 people and 35 scholarships granted to researchers from LMICs to attend world conferences, as well as lessons learnt and future challenges to maximize its work