Skip to main content
  • Original
  • Published:

The effects of a sensitisation campaign on unrecognised migraine: the Casilino study

Abstract

A striking feature of migraine is the difference between the estimated migraine prevalence and the actual number of migraineurs consulting their general practitioners (GPs). We investigated the impact of a sensitisation campaign on migraine in a large cohort of patients, living in a district of Rome. The study involved 10 GPs and a population of about 12 000 people, contacted by mail and posters located in GP clinics. Both the letter and poster stressed the impact of headache on quality of life and included the Italian version of the three-item Identification of Migraine (ID Migraine) screening test, consisting of questions on disability, nausea and photophobia. If the subjects suffered from headaches, they were invited to contact their GPs for a visit and a free consultation with a headache expert. By means of this sensitisation campaign, 195 headache patients consulted their GPs. Ninety-two percent of them (n=179) were migraineurs; 73% of them had never consulted a physician for headache. The ID Migraine test had a sensitivity of 0.92 (95% CI 0.86–0.95), a specificity of 0.75 (95% CI 0.47–0.91) and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.97 (95% CI 0.93–0.99) for a clinical diagnosis of migraine, according to the International Headache Society (IHS) criteria. This study confirms that a large number of migraine patients never see a doctor for their headache. This awareness campaign is likely to identify the severest cases of undiagnosed migraineurs. However, mailing campaigns do not seem to be so effective in bringing undiagnosed migraine patients into the primary care setting, and more efficient strategies have to be planned.

References

  1. Bigal ME, Lipton RB, Stewart WF (2004) The epidemiology and impact of migraine. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 4:98–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Leonardi M, Steiner TJ, Scher AT et al (2005) The global burden of migraine: measuring disability in headache disorders with WHO’s Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). J Headache Pain 6:429–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rasmussen BK, Jensen R, Olesen J (1992) Impact of headache on sickness absence and utilisation of medical services: a Danish population study. J Epidemiol Community Health 46:443–446

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Roncolato M, Fabbri L, Recchia G et al (2000) An epidemiological study to assess migraine prevalence in a sample of Italian population presenting to their GPs. Eur Neurol 43:102–106

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lipton RB, Scher AI, Kolodner K et al (2002) Migraine in the United States: epidemiology and patterns of health care use. Neurology 58:885–894

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Liberman JN (2002) Self-awareness of migraine: interpreting the labels that headache sufferers apply to their headaches. Neurology 58(Suppl 6):S21–S26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Amatniek JC et al (2004) Tools for diagnosing migraine and measuring its severity. Headache 44:387–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lipton RB, Dodick D, Sadovsky R et al (2003) A self-administered screener for migraine in primary care: The ID Migraine(TM) validation study. Neurology 61:375–382

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (1988) Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgias and facial pain. Cephalalgia 8[Suppl 7]:1–96

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bayliss MS, Bjorner JB, Kosinski M et al (2003) Development of HIT-6, a paper-based short form for measuring headache impact. In: Olesen J, Steiner TJ, Lipton RB, editors. Frontiers in Headache Research, Vol. 11. Reducing the Burden of Headache. New York: Oxford University Press-USA 386–390.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carling C (2004) International questionnaire postal response rate: an experiment comparing no return postage to provision of International Postage Vouchers—“Coupon-Response International”. BMC Health Serv Res 4:16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rasmussen BK, Olesen J (1992) Migraine with aura and migraine without aura: an epidemiological study. Cephalalgia 12:221–228

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Rasmussen BK (1992) Migraine and tension-type headache in a general population: psychosocial factors. Int J Epidemiol 21:1138–1143

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Steiner TJ, Scher AI, Stewart WF et al (2003) The prevalence and disability burden of adult migraine in England and their relationships to age, gender and ethnicity. Cephalalgia 23:519–527

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lipton RB, Scher AI, Steiner TJ et al (2003) Patterns of health care utilization for migraine in England and in the United States. Neurology 60:441–448

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Atasoy HT, Unal AE, Atasoy N et al (2005) Low income and education levels may cause medication overuse and chronicity in migraine patients. Headache 45:25–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Steiner TJ (2005) Lifting the Burden: the global campaign to reduce the burden of headache worldwide. J Headache Pain 373–377

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vittorio Di Piero.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Di Piero, V., Altieri, M., Conserva, G. et al. The effects of a sensitisation campaign on unrecognised migraine: the Casilino study. J Headache Pain 8, 205–208 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10194-007-0395-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10194-007-0395-6

Keywords