Dataset Information

Headache Triggers as Surprise.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To examine the hypothesis that surprising experiences of headache triggers are associated with daily headache activity. BACKGROUND:Little is known about the specific environmental or behavioral interactions that might trigger a headache attack in a prone individual. We propose that headache trigger exposures can be usefully characterized, not only by their mechanisms of action, but also on the degree of "surprise" they present to the individual. This hypothesis is based on elements of information theory: that unusual events and experiences carry more information than common events and experiences and that headache attacks are associated with reactions to uncommon or unexpected biopsychosocial exposures. METHODS:A secondary analysis of the Headache Prediction Study, this prospective cohort study followed N = 95 individuals with episodic migraine who contributed 4195 days of diary data. Information was collected on daily levels of several common headache triggers: number of caffeinated beverages, number of alcoholic beverages, stress (Daily Stress Inventory), and mood disturbance (Profile of Mood States). The probability of observing variations in each trigger was used to estimate the "surprisal" of experiencing each trigger, and this information, measured in bits, was used to predict headache attacks. RESULTS:Participants experienced a headache attack on 1613 of 4195 days (38.5%). Each of the triggers was modestly related to the probability of experiencing a future headache in a complex manner that involved interactions between current headache status, current levels of the trigger, and lagged (previous) levels of the trigger. However, when expressed as a surprisal, the associations were simplified and strengthened. For example, each of the individual trigger surprisals exhibited a meaningful association with the development of a future headache attack (expressed as a 1 SD change in surprisal), with odds ratios ranging from a low of 1.11 (95%CI: 1.00 to 1.24) for alcohol to a high of 1.30 (95%CI: 1.14 to 1.46) for stress. The individual surprisals could be summed for total trigger surprise and exhibited a reliable association with new onset headache, OR 1.35 (95%CI: 1.17 to 1.49). This score exhibited superior discrimination between headache and non-headache days from all of the individual triggers (ignoring base rate, AUC: 0.61; AUC: 0.71 with base rate). CONCLUSIONS:Diverse headache triggers can be uniformly described using their probability distributions. Rare values of headache triggers, or surprising values, were found to have consistent associations with headache activity across a variety of triggers. This finding, if validated in external data using other triggers, has potential to be used to conceptualize the influence of a wide range of headache triggers.

SUBMITTER: Turner DP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6521840 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Headache Triggers as Surprise.

Turner Dana P DP Lebowitz Adriana D AD Chtay Ivana I Houle Timothy T TT

Headache 20190328 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>To examine the hypothesis that surprising experiences of headache triggers are associated with daily headache activity.<h4>Background</h4>Little is known about the specific environmental or behavioral interactions that might trigger a headache attack in a prone individual. We propose that headache trigger exposures can be usefully characterized, not only by their mechanisms of action, but also on the degree of "surprise" they present to the individual. This hypothesis is based ...[more]

PMID: 30919414

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUNDIn our aging society, palliative care should be a standard component of health care. However, currently it is only provided to a small proportion of patients, mostly to those with cancer, and restricted to the terminal phase. Many general practitioners (GPs) say that one of their most significant challenges is to assess the right moment to start anticipatory palliative care. The "Surprise Question" (SQ1: "Would I be surprised if this patient were to die in the next 12 months"?), if answered with "no", is an easy tool to apply in identifying patients in need of palliative care. However, this tool has a low specificity. Therefore, the aim of our pilot study was to determine if adding a second, more specific "Surprise Question" (SQ2: "Would I be surprised if this patient is still alive after 12 months"?) in case SQ1 is answered in the negative, prompts GPs to plan for anticipatory palliative care.METHODSBy randomization, 28 GPs in the south-eastern part of the Netherlands were allocated to three different groups. They all received a questionnaire with four vignettes, respectively representing patients with advanced organ failure (A), end stage cancer (B), frailty (C), and recently diagnosed cancer (D). GPs in the first group did not receive additional information, the second group received SQ1 after each vignette, and the third group received SQ1 and SQ2 after each vignette. We rated their answers based on essential components of palliative care (here called RADIANT score).RESULTSGPs in group 3 gave higher RADIANT scores to those vignettes in which they would be surprised if the patients were still alive after 12 months. In all groups, vignette B had the highest mean RADIANT score, followed by vignettes A and C, and the lowest on vignette D. Seventy-one percent of GPs in groups 2 and 3 considered SQ1 a helpful tool, and 75% considered SQ2 helpful.CONCLUSIONSThis innovative pilot study indicates that the majority of GPs think SQ2 is a helpful additional tool. The combination of the two "Surprise Questions" encourages GPs to make more specific plans for anticipatory palliative care.

Dataset Information

Headache Triggers as Surprise.

Publications

Headache Triggers as Surprise.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets