Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache: 1. Rationale and description

In countries where headache services exist at all, their focus is usually on specialist (tertiary) care. This is clinically and economically inappropriate: most headache disorders can effectively and more efficiently (and at lower cost) be treated in educationally supported primary care. At the same time, compartmentalizing divisions between primary, secondary and tertiary care in many health-care systems create multiple inefficiencies, confronting patients attempting to navigate these levels (the “patient journey”) with perplexing obstacles. High demand for headache care, estimated here in a needs-assessment exercise, is the biggest of the challenges to reform. It is also the principal reason why reform is necessary. The structured headache services model presented here by experts from all world regions on behalf of the Global Campaign against Headache is the suggested health-care solution to headache. It develops and refines previous proposals, responding to the challenge of high demand by basing headache services in primary care, with two supporting arguments. First, only primary care can deliver headache services equitably to the large numbers of people needing it. Second, with educational supports, they can do so effectively to most of these people. The model calls for vertical integration between care levels (primary, secondary and tertiary), and protection of the more advanced levels for the minority of patients who need them. At the same time, it is amenable to horizontal integration with other care services. It is adaptable according to the broader national or regional health services in which headache services should be embedded. It is, according to evidence and argument presented, an efficient and cost-effective model, but these are claims to be tested in formal economic analyses

Barriers to headache care in low- and middle-income countries

Headache disorders are a common cause of disability globally and lead not only to physical disability but also to financial strain, higher rates of mental health disorders such as depression and anxiety, and reduced economic productivity which negatively impacts gross domestic product (GDP) on a national scale. While data about headache are relatively scarce in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), those available suggest that headache disorders occur on a similar scale in LMICs as they do in high-income countries. In this manuscript, we discuss common clinical, political, economic and social barriers to headache care for people living in LMICs. These barriers, affecting every aspect of headache care, begin with community perceptions and cultural beliefs about headache, include ineffective headache care delivery systems and poor headache care training for healthcare workers, and extend through fewer available diagnostic and management tools to limited therapeutic options for headache. Finally, we review potential solutions to these barriers, including educational interventions for healthcare workers, the introduction of a tiered system for headache care provision, creation of locally contextualized diagnostic and management algorithms, and implementation of a stepped approach to headache treatment

Structured Q1 headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache: 1. Rationale and description

In countries where headache services exist at all, their focus is usually on specialist (tertiary) care. This is clinically and economically inappropriate: most headache disorders can effectively and more efficiently (and at lower cost) be treated in educationally supported primary care. At the same time, compartmentalizing divisions between primary, secondary and tertiary care in many health-care systems create multiple inefficiencies, confronting patients attempting to navigate these levels (the “patient journey”) with perplexing obstacles. High demand for headache care, estimated here in a needs-assessment exercise, is the biggest of the challenges to reform. It is also the principal reason why reform is necessary. The structured headache services model presented here by experts from all world regions on behalf of the Global Campaign against Headache is the suggested health-care solution to headache. It develops and refines previous proposals, responding to the challenge of high demand by basing headache services in primary care, with two supporting arguments. First, only primary care can deliver headache services equitably to the large numbers of people needing it. Second, with educational supports, they can do so effectively to most of these people. The model calls for vertical integration between care levels (primary, secondary and tertiary), and protection of the more advanced levels for the minority of patients who need them. At the same time, it is amenable to horizontal integration with other care services. It is adaptable according to the broader national or regional health services in which headache services should be embedded

Structured Q1 headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache: 1. Rationale and description

In countries where headache services exist at all, their focus is usually on specialist (tertiary) care. This is clinically and economically inappropriate: most headache disorders can effectively and more efficiently (and at lower cost) be treated in educationally supported primary care. At the same time, compartmentalizing divisions between primary, secondary and tertiary care in many health-care systems create multiple inefficiencies, confronting patients attempting to navigate these levels (the “patient journey”) with perplexing obstacles. High demand for headache care, estimated here in a needs-assessment exercise, is the biggest of the challenges to reform. It is also the principal reason why reform is necessary. The structured headache services model presented here by experts from all world regions on behalf of the Global Campaign against Headache is the suggested health-care solution to headache. It develops and refines previous proposals, responding to the challenge of high demand by basing headache services in primary care, with two supporting arguments. First, only primary care can deliver headache services equitably to the large numbers of people needing it. Second, with educational supports, they can do so effectively to most of these people. The model calls for vertical integration between care levels (primary, secondary and tertiary), and protection of the more advanced levels for the minority of patients who need them. At the same time, it is amenable to horizontal integration with other care services. It is adaptable according to the broader national or regional health services in which headache services should be embedded. It is, according to evidence and argument presented, an efficient and cost-effective model, but these are claims to be tested in formal economic analyses

Global uncertainty in the diagnosis of neurological complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection by both neurologists and non-neurologists: An international inter-observer variability study

Introduction: Uniform case definitions are required to ensure harmonised reporting of neurological syndromes associated with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, it is unclear how clinicians perceive the relative importance of SARSCoV-2 in neurological syndromes, which risks under- or over-reporting. Methods: We invited clinicians through global networks, including the World Federation of Neurology, to assess ten anonymised vignettes of SARS-CoV-2 neurological syndromes. Using standardised case definitions, clinicians assigned a diagnosis and ranked association with SARS-CoV-2. We compared diagnostic accuracy and assigned association ranks between different settings and specialties and calculated inter-rater agreement for case definitions as "poor" (kappa <= 0.4), "moderate" or "good" (kappa > 0.6). Results: 1265 diagnoses were assigned by 146 participants from 45 countries on six continents. The highest correct proportion were cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST, 95.8%), Guillain-Barre ' syndrome (GBS, 92.4%) and headache (91.6%) and the lowest encephalitis (72.8%), psychosis (53.8%) and encephalopathy (43.2%). Diagnostic accuracy was similar between neurologists and non-neurologists (median score 8 vs. 7/10, p = 0.1). settings with few neurologists. However, encephalopathy, encephalitis, and psychosis were often misdiagnosed