Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Electronic behavioral interventions for headache: a systematic review

The Journal of Headache and Pain volume 17, Article number: 51 (2016) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

There is increasing interest in using electronic behavioral interventions as well as mobile technologies such as smartphones for improving the care of chronic disabling diseases such as migraines. However, less is known about the current clinical evidence for the feasibility and effectiveness of such behavioral interventions.

Objective

To review the published literature of behavioral interventions for primary headache disorders delivered by electronic means suitable for use outside of the clinician’s office.

Methods

An electronic database search of PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase was conducted through December 11, 2015. All eligible studies were systematically reviewed to examine the modality in which treatment was delivered (computer, smartphone, watch and other), types of behavioral intervention delivered (cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT], biofeedback, relaxation, other), the headache type being treated, duration of treatment, adherence, and outcomes obtained by the trials to examine the overall feasibility of electronic behavioral interventions for headache.

Results

Our search produced 291 results from which 23 eligible articles were identified. Fourteen studies used the internet via the computer, 2 used Personal Digital Assistants, 2 used CD ROM and 5 used other types of devices. None used smartphones or wearable devices. Four were pilot studies (N ≤ 10) which assessed feasibility. For the behavioral intervention, CBT was used in 11 (48 %) of the studies, relaxation was used in 8 (35 %) of the studies, and biofeedback was used in 5 (22 %) of the studies. The majority of studies (14/23, 61 %) used more than one type of behavioral modality. The duration of therapy ranged from 4–8 weeks for CBT with a mean of 5.9 weeks. The duration of other behavioral interventions ranged from 4 days to 60 months. Outcomes measured varied widely across the individual studies.

Conclusions

Despite the move toward individualized medicine and mHealth, the current literature shows that most studies using electronic behavioral intervention for the treatment of headache did not use mobile devices. The studies examining mobile devices showed that the behavioral interventions that employed them were acceptable to patients. Data are limited on the dose required, long term efficacy, and issues related to the security and privacy of this health data.

This study was registered at the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42015032284) (Prospero, 2015).

Introduction

Experts in behavioral headache medicine have identified ten areas of critical need for behavioral headache research. One important unmet need is the development of an innovative technology-based treatment platform for headache self-management [1]. Behavioral headache treatments (e.g., progressive muscle relaxation (PMR), biofeedback, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)) are Level A Evidence-Based migraine treatments [2] that are essentially free of side effects [3]. Behavioral treatments have enduring benefits [4] and may be less costly than pharmacologic interventions [5]. Questions remain whether these evidence-based treatments can effectively be delivered electronically so that patients can do them on their own outside of the clinical setting. This is an important and timely topic because in 2014, 64 million Americans had smartphones [6]. The FDA states that per industry estimates, 500 million smartphone users worldwide will be using a health care application (app) by 2015 [7], and by 2018, 50 percent of the more than 3.4 billion smartphone and tablet users will have downloaded mobile health apps [8]. Most published literature regarding health apps has focused on preventing and managing chronic disease [9, 10], monitoring app acceptability and utility [11–14], and qualitative studies of user experience and desired functions [15–18]. However, it is unclear the extent to which apps are effective at facilitating behavior change [19].

The creation of electronic headache apps has proliferated, with over 40 headache apps in the U.S. Google Play Store (Date accessed 12/23/15) and over 70 headache apps in the U.S. Apple iTunes store (Date accessed 1/8/16). These apps advertise various purposes-the ability to track headache frequency with electronic headache diary functionality, the ability to detect headache triggers, and the ability to treat headaches with behavioral treatments. Prior studies have demonstrated that smartphone apps with electronic headache diaries are a reliable method for data collection preferred over paper headache diaries by patients because electronic diaries are more discreet in the work place [20]. Electronic headache diary data collection also results in fewer secondary data errors [21], less administrative burden [22, 23], high participant acceptance [23], and potential cost savings [24]. Additionally, this format allows the use of reminders and timely follow-up of non-compliant participants via real time investigator data monitoring capabilities. Thus, while we know that electronic headache diaries are useful for collecting data, it is unknown whether behavioral interventions, oftentimes delivered along with the electronic diaries, are feasible and effective.

The purpose of this systematic review is to describe the current body of literature on electronic behavioral interventions for primary headaches that can be used outside of the clinician’s office. Specifically, we reviewed the literature to first examine the modalities in which such treatments were delivered (computer, smartphone, watch and other), types of behavioral intervention delivered (CBT, biofeedback, relaxation, other), the headache type being treated, duration of the treatment, adherence, and outcomes obtained by the trials. We also examine the overall feasibility of smartphone interventions for primary headache disorders. Understanding the existing literature on the electronic behavioral interventions will increase our understanding of what has been learnt so far, where the potential of this technology may be best realized in future, and what may be applied to the growing field of mHealth.

Review

Methods

A health sciences librarian (AP) conducted searches in PubMed.gov, Embase (via Ovid), and PsycINFO (via Ovid) from January 1, 2000 through December 11, 2015. The search strategy combined three concepts: (1) headaches (e.g. “migraines”), (2) electronic or computerized formats (e.g. “internet”), and (3) behavioral interventions (e.g. “behavior therapy”). Terms were searched both as keywords and Subject Heading terms. The search was restricted to studies published in or after 2000. A manual search among references of selected articles and reviews was also performed (MM). The full search strategies are available in the Appendix. After deduplication, 291 unique records were identified.

Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they were randomized controlled trials, prospective non-randomized trials, or observational studies using a behavioral intervention for a primary headache disorder. Secondary headache disorders, including dental disorders, were not eligible. Studies involving telephonic interventions were not included.

Two study investigators (MM, JT) included or excluded articles based on the predefined eligibility criteria using a two-step procedure. In the first step, the investigators independently reviewed titles and abstracts. Twenty-two articles were resolved by consensus, and 256 articles were excluded. Main reasons for exclusion based on title and abstract were because the papers did not pertain to a primary headache disorder (N = 99), were review articles (N = 78), or were studies about medications (not behavioral interventions) (N = 25).

In the second step, the same investigators independently reviewed the full-text version of the remaining 32 eligible articles. Any differences in selection from the two independent searches were resolved by consensus between the two investigators. Of the 32 remaining articles for full-text screening, 23 met inclusion criteria. Two articles were resolved by consensus.

A standardized form was used for data extraction, including the following items: first author, year of the study, country where the study was performed, type of behavioral intervention, mode of electronic delivery, study design, recruitment and setting, headache type, participants, outcomes measured, and results.

This study was registered at the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42015032284) [25]. Reporting of this study conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [26] and the flow diagram can be found in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram

Full size image

Results

As indicated in Table 1, 23 studies met our search criteria, 8 were performed in pediatric populations and the remainder performed in adults. The majority (14/23, 61 %) used the internet to deliver the behavioral electronic intervention. Only 2/23 (9 %) used CD ROMs and 2/23 (9 %) used Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs). A PDA is a handheld digital device which is similar to its successor of the smartphone but often lacks either the touch screen, connectivity, or ability to download and run native applications that a smartphone can. Five used alternate means but none used smartphone technology. About half (13/23, 57 %) were randomized controlled trials. For the behavioral intervention, CBT was used in 11/23 (48 %) (one study used family CBT), relaxation was used in 8/23 (35 %) (half of these studies specified that PMR was used for the relaxation therapy), and biofeedback was used in 5/23 (22 %) of the studies. The majority (14/23, 61 %) used more than one type of behavioral modality. Descriptions of the procedures for teaching and/or practicing the CBT were varied. Descriptions ranged from “a CD ROM program designed to give children additional strategies to help manage their headache pain” to references of full CBT procedure modules. The table in the Appendix illustrates the varied descriptions provided in the papers. The duration of therapy ranged from 4–8 weeks for CBT with a mean of 5.9 weeks. The duration of other behavioral interventions ranged from 4 days to 60 months.

Table 1 Description of studies meeting eligibility for the systematic review
Full size table

As indicated in Table 2, the outcomes measured from the various studies ranged considerably. About one third of studies (7/23, 30 %) used measures of headache occurrence as outcomes such as a 50 % reduction in headache frequency, headache intensity or headache index as an outcomes measure. The most frequent outcome assessed was acceptability of/satisfaction with the intervention, with 9/23 (39 %) studies assessing this. Five studies (22 %) used medications or a medication index for assessment. 6/23 (26 %) studies used measures of depression, anxiety and/or stress. Only 2/23 (9 %) studies evaluated cost. Three (13 %) used self-efficacy and/or locus of control.

Table 2 Outcomes table ([27, 38–57] 58–62)
Full size table

Many of the studies were considered “pilot” studies and thus had a small number of subjects, limiting the ability to detect differences between treatment groups and controls. 16/23 (70 %) studies had a N ≥ 30. Of the 16, one study by Bromberg et al. [27] had technical issues leading to the loss of data. Of the remaining 15 studies, six had statistically significant positive findings for their respective primary outcomes (frequency and/or intensity and/or disability and/or medications taken) in the electronic behavioral intervention group compared to controls. No studies addressed power analysis.

Looking at the 9/23 (39 %) studies that offered CBT interventions with N ≥ 30, there was a positive outcome in headache frequency, severity, intensity and/or migraine medications taken in 4/9 (44 %) studies. Of the 3/23 (13 %) studies which used biofeedback as part of the behavioral intervention, only two (67 %) had N ≥ 30 and one (33 %) of these studies had a decrease in peak intensity. Of the 8/23 (35 %) studies using relaxation, 7 (88 %) had N ≥ 30 and of these, only 2/7 (29 %) had positive outcomes (frequency and peak intensity).

One study by Bromberg and colleagues evaluated whether there was a dose response by test determining whether more time spent on the intervention website resulted in a greater treatment effect. The researcher divided the treatment group into low-dose and high-dose groups. Participants who used the site the most reported greater increases in feelings of self-efficacy from baseline to post-intervention (t = 5.41, P < .0010), 3 months (t = 4.53, P < .0010) and 6 months (t = 4.64, P < .0010) but outcome variables aside from self-efficacy were not affected [27]. This study also performed a completer analysis (i.e. whether there was a different intervention effect for participants who completed all study assessments compared with those who did not). For all but 2 outcomes (self-efficacy and headache locus of control), no difference in treatment effect was noted for completers compared with non-completers.

Discussion

Of the 23 papers on digitally delivered behavioral interventions for headache, all were published after the year 2000 and most (55 %) were published after the year 2010. Overall results suggest moderate to high rates of acceptability and feasibility of using technology to treat headaches, although efficacy data are more limited. Patients were comfortable using a variety of delivery modalities including CD-ROMs in two studies, the internet in 14 studies, personal digital assistants in two studies, custom biofeedback devices in three studies, and a personal audio player in one study. Although the pilot nature of many of these studies makes it difficult to directly compare outcomes, results of these 23 studies can help guide future efforts to develop more effective, engaging, and evidence-based digital interventions for headache.

Focusing on outcomes, results of the 23 studies suggest that patients are willing to use digitally-delivered behavioral headache interventions. The studies used varied headache related outcome measures: headache index, headache duration, headache frequency, headache intensity, medications, self-efficacy, quality of life, sleep, anxiety, depression, distress, and disability. Also, the studies used many diverse outcome measures regarding the use of the technology being studied: satisfaction, feasibility, tolerability, adherence, and engagement among others. The variability in reporting instruments used to record headache symptoms limits direct comparison between studies. However, in an effort to broadly understand the overall impact on headache, we considered which interventions led to a 50 % or greater reduction in headache symptoms seen only in the intervention and not in the control group. Only a minority of studies were able to demonstrate this statistically significant reduction in symptoms. The combination of internet based interventions with CBT had the most positive effect on headache reduction. Given the widespread acceptance of the effectiveness of CBT for headache symptoms and the increasing access as well as comfort that many have with the internet, the successful combination is not surprising. Internet-delivered CBT has also been an area of intense research in other fields such as psychiatry in exploring applications for treating depression [28–30] and in pain medicine for reducing discomfort. [31–33] Along these lines, given the high prevalence of psychiatric comorbidity and migraine [34], future studies can be done to explore whether these electronic behavioral interventions help pain outcomes and the psychiatric symptoms.

The results of many of the reviewed studies must be understood in terms of several common themes. Drop-out rates for the digital interventions ranged widely. Adherence is a common concern for headache medication [35, 36], with estimates that anywhere from 25 % to 94 % of adults adhere to headache treatment regimens [35]. Thus, adherence is also a concern for digital interventions. Recent studies of computer based CBT delivered for purposes outside of headache have suggested that the average user may only complete a single session of computer based CBT [37] and our review suggests the same issue may occur when using computer CBT for headache. These adherence rates in the review may actually be higher than in clinical practice as some studies tied compensation to adherence and others offered personal check-ins or other study staff interventions to encourage adherence. Given the chronic nature of many headache conditions, long term adherence or adherence with booster sessions may be important if digital interventions are to have long term efficacy. The average duration of studies was only 6 weeks, rendering it difficult to fully understand how engaged patients will be with digital tools that may be used over a period of months instead of weeks. Future studies can be done to better assess adherence. Future studies can evaluate the need for booster sessions to help maintain skills. Engagement of patients, families, and treating clinicians in the development, refinement, and post study iterative improvement in the intervention would likely increase adherence and potency of the treatment. Studies can also be done to determine whether the psychiatric comorbidities such as anxiety and depression play a role in adherence with electronic behavioral treatments for headache. In addition, whether these evidence-based treatments can effectively be delivered electronically outside of the clinical setting remains to be seen.

Beyond concerns regarding adherence, understanding the impact of these digitally delivered behavioral interventions for headache is difficult because of the numerous confounding variables in many of the individual studies. But rather than being just a cause for caution, these confounding variables also suggest important research agenda items in seeking to understand the mechanism and efficacy of these interventions. For example, numerous studies involved human contact, be it in the form of a research assistant checking in to a therapist offering personalized feedback, although the impact of such additional human interaction and feedback was hardly explored. In our review, we found one study conducted to explicitly determine the role of such human contact; the study by Andersson and colleagues examined whether telephone contact by a therapist improved adherence and headache related disability, stress, and coping outcomes when used with an internet-based cognitive behavioral self-help program. However, therapist-initiated telephone calls did not influence the results [38]. Also, many of the interventions employed technologies that prompted use between once a day to several times per day but again the impact and optimal number of prompts was examined in only one study, in which the investigators noted that users displayed some annoyance about the number of digital prompts they received [39]. Along similar lines, no studies looked at the right “dose” of behavioral interventions, e.g., how many CBT sessions are necessary, the most effective length of each CBT session, and if and when should there be refresher lessons. Of the reviewed papers, the average number of sessions or lessons was six and was static and fixed for each study. Finally, few studies employed blinded controls (e.g., sham CBT) making it hard to understand the true placebo effect of receiving what may be perceived as ‘high tech treatment.’ However, per the Behavioral Clinical Headache Trials Guidelines, the placebo is not a realistic expectation of behavioral trials anyway [40].

In this era of increasing interest in mobile health, smartphone apps, and wearables, it was interesting to note the paucity of literature exploring the mobile delivery of behavioral interventions for headache. This is especially interesting as smartphones can fulfill many of the delivery modalities explored in the literature (cd-rom, internet, personal digital assistants, audio) and also offer all the interventions offered in the literature (CBT, self-management, relaxation, and biofeedback). With ownership of smartphones in the general population at 64 % in 2015 [41] and expected to increase in 2016, it seems likely that smartphones will may offer an accessible and practical tool for behavioral interventions for treatment of headache. However, further data is needed on those who do not have access or ability to use a smartphone in order to understand the true potential. Still, the lack of any outcomes literature on this topic reflects a critical opportunity of researchers.

Despite the paucity of data on smartphone interventions, a quick search of the Apple or Android app marketplaces shows that this lack of a clinical evidence base has not stopped industry or consumer interest in headache intervention apps. Recent reviews have called into question the quality of these headache apps on the commercial marketplaces [42]. Assuming that the same complexities of efficacy and adherence that were noted in the 14 studies of internet delivered CBT for headache may also be applicable for smartphone delivered interventions—such concerns about the utility of commercially based headache apps seem valid although more research is needed here.

Several limitations must be considered in light of our methodology. As a literature review, we only report on published clinical studies and ignore industry and private efforts to use technology to deliver behavioral interventions for headache. While it is likely that industry efforts have achieved results beyond those noted in our review—validating such technologies in clinical studies remains critical. Also, we did not evaluate the quality of CBT, biofeedback or PMR delivered in the reviewed papers and it is possible that differences in the delivery of the behavioral intervention itself may have impacted outcomes. For example, one study used not individual but family based CBT [43]. In addition, we did not control for study methodology with some studies offering subjects more encouragement and assistance which may have also impacted adherence rates. Quantifying such support is difficult as many studies were vague or did not report on exact amount or quantity of assistance provided in using the technology. Finally, we acknowledge that there are no established data on the effect sizes of the electronic behavioral interventions for headache. We used N ≥ 30 to collectively describe studies that were not just very small pilot studies.

Conclusion

Through this systematic review we have explored the literature on digitally delivered behavioral interventions for headache. While results suggest feasibility, data on efficacy and adherence is harder to interpret. The lack of studies on smartphones is notable and presents an important research opportunity going forward.

References

  1. Penzien DB, Rains JC, Lipchik GL, Nicholson RA, Lake AE 3rd, Hursey KG (2005) Future directions in behavioral headache research: Applications for an evolving health care environment. Headache 45(5):526–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Silberstein SD (2000) Practice parameter: Evidence-based guidelines for migraine headache (an evidence-based review): Report of the quality standards subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 55(6):754–762

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Campbell J, Penzien D, Wall E (1999) Evidence-based guidelines for migraine headache: Behavioral and physical treatments

    Google Scholar 

  4. Andrasik F, Blanchard EB, Neff DF, Rodichok LD (1984) Biofeedback and relaxation training for chronic headache: A controlled comparison of booster treatments and regular contacts for long-term maintenance. J Consult Clin Psychol 52(4):609–615

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schafer AM, Rains JC, Penzien DB, Groban L, Smitherman TA, Houle TT (2011) Direct costs of preventive headache treatments: Comparison of behavioral and pharmacologic approaches. Headache 51(6):985–991. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2011.01905.x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Mobile technology fact sheet. Pew Research Center Web site. http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/. Updated 2014. Accessed 1/8, 2016.

  7. Mobile medical applications. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DigitalHealth/MobileMedicalApplications/default.htm. Updated 9/22/15. Accessed 12/23, 2015.

  8. Research to guidance. Research to Guidance Web site. http://www.research2guidance.com/500m-people-will. Updated 2015. Accessed 12/23, 2015.

  9. McGillicuddy J, Weiland A, Frenzel R et al (2013) Patient attitudes toward mobile phone-based health monitoring: Questionnaire study among kidney transplant recipients. J Med Internet Res 15(1):e6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Blake H (2008) Innovation in practice: Mobile phone technology in patient care. Br J Community Nurs 13(4):160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Robinson E, Higgs S, Daley A et al. (2013) Development and feasibility testing of a smart phone based attentive eating intervention. BMC Public Health 13:639.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Worringham C, Rojek A, Stewart I (2011) Development and feasibility of a smartphone, ECG and GPS based system for remotely monitoring exercise in cardiac rehabilitation. PLoS One 6(2):e14669

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Nes A, van Dulmen S, Eide E et al (2012) The development and feasibility of a web-based intervention with diaries and situational feedback via smartphone to support self-management in patients with diabetes type 2. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 97(3):385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mark T, Fortner B, Johnson G (2008) Evaluation of a tablet PC technology to screen and educate oncology patients. Support Care Cancer 16(4):371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dennison L, Morrison L, Conway G, Yardley L (2013) Opportunities and challenges for smartphone applications in supporting health behavior change: Qualitative study. J Med Internet Res 15(4):e86

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Lyles C, Harris L, Le T et al (2011) Qualitative evaluation of a mobile phone and web-based collaborative care intervention for patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Techno Ther 13(5):563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rabin C, Bock B (2011) Desired features of smartphone applications promoting physical activity. Telemed J E Health 17(10):801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Huguet A, Stinson J, MacKay B et al (2014) Bringing psychosocial support to headache sufferers using information and communication technology: Lessons learned from asking potential users what they want. Pain Res Manag 19:e1–e8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Payne H, Lister C, West J, Bernhardt J (2015) Behavioral functionality of mobile apps in health interventions: A systematic review of the literature. JMIR mHealth uHealth 3(1):e20

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Giffin NJ, Ruggiero L, Lipton RB et al (2003) Premonitory symptoms in migraine: An electronic diary study. Neurology 60(6):935–940

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ganser AL, Raymond SA, Pearson JD. Data quality and power in clinical trials: a comparison of ePRO and paper in a randomized trial. In: Byrom B, Tiplady B, editors. ePRO: electronic solutions for patient-reporteddata. Surray: Gower; 2010. pp. 49–78.

  22. Dale O, Hagen KB (2007) Despite technical problems personal digital assistants outperform pen and paper when collecting patient diary data. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):8–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Greenwood MC, Hakim AJ, Carson E, Doyle DV (2006) Touch-screen computer systems in the rheumatology clinic offer a reliable and user-friendly means of collecting quality-of-life and outcome data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 45(1):66–71

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Jose N, Langel K. ePRO vs. paper. Applied Clinical Trials. 2010.

  25. Mia Minen, John Torous, Allison Piazza. Systematic review of behavioral interventions delivered electronically for headache. PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015032284 Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42015032284.

  26. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, The PRISMA group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS One 6(6):e1000097

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bromberg J, Wood ME, Black RA, Surette DA, Zacharoff KL, Chiauzzi EJ (2012) A randomized trial of a web-based intervention to improve migraine self-management and coping. Headache 52:244–261

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Arnberg FK, Linton SJ, Hultcrantz M, Heintz E, Jonsson U (2014) Internet-delivered psychological treatments for mood and anxiety disorders: A systematic review of their efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness. PLoS One 9(5):1–13. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hedman E, Ljotsson B, Lindefors N (2012) Cognitive behavior therapy via the internet: A systematic review of applications, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 12(6):745–764. doi:10.1586/erp.12.67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Vallury KD, Jones M, Oosterbroek C (2015) Computerized cognitive behavior therapy for anxiety and depression in rural areas: A systematic review. J Med Internet Res 17(6):e139. doi:10.2196/jmir.4145

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Palermo TM, Wilson AC, Peters M, Lewandowski A, Somhegyi H (2009) Randomized controlled trial of an internet-delivered family cognitive-behavioral therapy intervention for children and adolescents with chronic pain. Pain 146:205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Fisher E, Law E, Palermo TM, Eccleston C (2015) Psychological therapies (remotely delivered) for the management of chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:Cd011118

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Eccleston C, Fisher E, Craig L, Duggan GB, Rosser BA, Keogh E (2014) Psychological therapies (internet-delivered) for the management of chronic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD010152

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Minen MT, Begasse De Dhaem O, Kroon Van Diest A et al (2016) Migraine and its psychiatric comorbidities. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry

  35. Ramsey RR, Ryan JL, Hershey AD, Powers SW, Aylward BS, Hommel KA (2014) Treatment adherence in patients with headache: A systematic review. Headache 54(5):795–816. doi:10.1111/head.12353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Seng EK, Rains JA, Nicholson RA, Lipton RB (2015) Improving medication adherence in migraine treatment. Curr Pain Headache Rep 19(6):24-015-0498-8. doi:10.1007/s11916-015-0498-8

  37. Gillbody S, Littlewood E, Hewitt C, et al (2015) Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as treatment for depression in primary care (REEACT trial): Large scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ 351(h5627).Epub ahead of print

  38. Andersson G, Lundstrom P, Strom L (2003) Internet-based treatment of headache: Does telephone contact add anything? Headache 43:353–361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sorbi MJ, Mak SB, Houtveen JH, Kleiboer AM, van Doornen L (2007) Mobile web-based monitoring and coaching: Feasibility in chronic migraine. J Med Internet Res 9(5):e38. doi:10.2196/jmir.9.5.e38

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Penzien DB, Andrasik F, Freidenberg BM et al (2005) Guidelines for trials of behavioral treatments for recurrent headache, first edition: American headache society behavioral clinical trials workgroup. Headache 45(Suppl 2):S110–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Smith A. Chapter one: A portrait of smartphone ownership. Pew Research Center Web site. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/chapter-one-a-portrait-of-smartphone-ownership/. Published April 1, 2015. Updated 2015. Accessed 1/8, 2016.

  42. Hundert A, Huguet A, McGrath P, Stinson J, Wheaton M (2014) Commercially available mobile phone headache diary apps: A systematic review. JMR MHealth UHealth 2(3):e36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Law EF, Beals-Erickson SE, Noel M, Claar R, Palermo TM (2015) Pilot randomized controlled trial of internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral treatment for pediatric headache. Headache 55(10):1410–25

  44. Connelly MA, Rapoff MA, Thompson N, Connelly W (2006) ‘Headstrong’: A computer-based cognitive-behavioral intervention for recurrent pediatric headache. J Pediatr Psychol 31(7):737–47.

  45. Rapoff MA, Connelly M, Bickel JL et al (2014) Headstrong intervention for pediatric migraine headache: A randomized clinical trial. J Headache Pain 15:12

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Day MA, Thorn BE, Ward L et al (2014) Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for the treatment of headache pain: A pilot study. Clin J Pain 30:152–161

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Trautmann E, Kroner-Herwig B (2010) A randomized controlled trial of internet-based self-help training for recurrent headache in childhood and adolescence. Behav Res Ther 48:28–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sorbi M, Kleiboer A, van Silfhout H, Vink G, Passchier J (2015) Medium-term effectiveness of online behavioral training in migraine self-management: A randomized trial controlled over 10 months. Cephalalgia 35(7):608–18.

  49. Trautmann E, Kroner-Herwig B (2008) Internet-based self-help training for children and adolescents with recurrent headache: A pilot study. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 36:241–245

  50. Hedborg K, Muhr C (2012) The influence of multimodal behavioral treatment on the consumption of acute migraine drugs: A randomized, controlled study. Cephalalgia 32:297–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hedborg K, Muhr C (2011) Multimodal behavioral treatment of migraine: An internet-administered, randomized, controlled trial. Ups J Med Sci 116:169–186

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Devineni T, Blanchard EB (2005) A randomized controlled trial of an internet-based treatment for chronic headache. Behav Res Ther 43:277–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Strom L, Pettersson R, Andersson G (2000) A controlled trial of self-help treatment of recurrent headache conducted via the internet. J Consult Clin Psychol 68:722–727

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kleiboer A, Sorbi M, van Silfhout M, Kooistra L, Passchier J (2014) Short-term effectiveness of an online behavioral training in migraine self-management: A randomized controlled trial. Behav Res Ther 61:61–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Sorbi MJ, van der Vaart R (2010) User acceptance of an internet training aid for migraine self-management. J Telemed Telecare 16:20–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Donovan E, Mehringer S, Zeltzer LK (2013) Assessing the feasibility of a web-based self-management program for adolescents with migraines and their caregivers. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 52:667–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kleiboer A, Sorbi M, Merelle S, Passchier J, van Doornen L (2009) Utility and preliminary effects of online digital assistance (ODA) for behavioral attack prevention in migraine. Telemed J E Health 15:682–690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Shiri S, Feintuch U, Weiss N, et al. A virtual reality system combined with biofeedback for treating pediatric chronic headache-A pilot study. Pain Med. 2013;14(5):621–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Scharff L, Marcus DA, Masek BJ. A controlled study of minimal-contact thermal biofeedback treatment in children with migraine. J Pediatr Psychol. 2002;27(2):109–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Trinka E, Unterrainer J, Luthringshausen G, et al. An auditory electrophysiological intervention in migraine: A randomized placebo controlled add on trial. Journal of Neurotherapy 2002;6(2):21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Arena J, Dennis N, Devineni T, Maclean R, Meador K. A pilot study of feasibility and efficacy of telemedicine-delivered psychophysiological treatment for vascular headache. Telemed J E Health. 2004;10:449–454.

  62. Folen RA, James LC, Earles JE, Andrasik F. Biofeedback via telehealth: A new frontier for applied psychophysiology. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2001;26:195–204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology, NYU Langone Medical Center, 240 East 38th Street 20th floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Mia Tova Minen

  2. NYU Langone Headache Center, Department of Neurology, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Mia Tova Minen

  3. Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    John Torous

  4. NYU School of Medicine, New York, USA

    Jenelle Raynowska

  5. Department of Library Services, NYU School of Medicine, New York, USA

    Allison Piazza

  6. Department of Emergency Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Corita Grudzen

  7. Cincinnati Children’s Medical Center, Headache Center, Office for Clinical and Translational Research, Center for Child Behavior and Nutrition Research and Training, Pediatrics Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

    Scott Powers

  8. Montefiore Headache Center, Department of Neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Neurology, Bronx, USA

    Richard Lipton

  9. Center for Behavioral Change, Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Mary Ann Sevick

Authors
  1. Mia Tova Minen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Torous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jenelle Raynowska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Allison Piazza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Corita Grudzen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Scott Powers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Richard Lipton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mary Ann Sevick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mia Tova Minen.

Additional information

Competing interests

Dr. Richard Lipton reports grants and personal fees from Alder, personal fees from Allergan, personal fees from CoLucid, grants and personal fees from Electrocore, personal fees and other from eNeura, personal fees from Ethicon, personal fees from Merck, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Labrys, personal fees from Autonomic Technologies, personal fees from Boston Scientific, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from Dr. Reddys, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from Endo Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Informa, grants from Migraine Research Fund, grants from National Headache Foundaiton, grants from NIH, personal fees from Teva, personal fees from Vedanta, outside the submitted work.

Dr. Mary Ann Sevick’s mentoring effort is covered under an NIH-K24-NR01226 award.

Authors’ contributions

MTM conceived of the study, participated in the design and coordination of the systematic review and helped to draft the manuscript. JT conceived of the study, participated in the design and coordination of the systematic review and helped to draft the manuscript. JR helped to acquire and analyze the data and helped to draft the manuscript. AP helped to acquire and analyze the data and helped to draft the manuscript. CG participated in the conception of the systematic review and revised it critically for important intellectual content. SP helped with the interpretation of the data and critically reviewed the draft for important intellectual content. RL helped with the interpretation of the data and critically reviewed the draft for important intellectual content. MS RL helped with the interpretation of the data and critically reviewed the draft for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Appendix

Appendix

Search strategy

PUBMED, Embase and Psycinfo, 2000-December 11, 2015, restricted to English

The search strategy was as follows:

(“Headache”[Mesh] OR “Headache Disorders”[Mesh] OR “Headache Disorders, Primary”[MeSH] OR “Migraine Disorders”[MeSH] OR “Tension-Type Headache”[Mesh] OR headache[tiab] OR headaches[tiab] OR migraine[tiab] OR migraines[tiab] OR migranous[tiab] OR “head pain”[tiab] OR “head pains”[tiab] OR Cephalalgia[tiab] OR Cephalalgias[tiab] OR “Cranial Pains”[tiab] OR “Cranial Pain”[tiab] OR “tension-type headache”[tiab] OR “tension-type headaches”[tiab] OR “tension headache”[tiab] OR “tension headaches”[tiab] OR headache[ot] OR headaches[ot] OR migraine[ot] OR migraines[ot] OR “head pain”[ot] OR Cephalalgia[ot] OR Cephalalgias[ot] OR “Cranial Pain”[ot] OR “tension-type headache”[ot] OR “tension-type headaches”[ot] OR “tension headache”[ot]) AND (“Mobile Applications”[Mesh] OR “Internet”[Mesh] OR “Telemedicine”[Mesh] OR telemedicine[tiab] OR “Telephone”[Mesh] OR telephone[tiab] OR “Computers”[Mesh] OR “audiovisual aids”[Mesh] OR “mp3-player”[Mesh] OR “Therapy, Computer-Assisted”[Mesh] “electronics, medical”[Mesh] OR “Electronics”[Mesh] OR “software”[MeSH] OR “online systems”[MeSH] OR “cell phones”[MeSH] OR smartphone[tiab] OR “smart phone”[tiab] OR iphone[tiab] OR mobile[tiab] OR cellphone[tiab] OR cellphones[tiab] OR “cell phone”[tiab] OR “cell phones”[tiab] OR internet[tiab] OR mhealth[tiab] OR “mobile health”[tiab] OR telehealth[tiab] OR eHealth[tiab] OR computer[tiab] OR computers[tiab] OR electronic[tiab] OR electronics[tiab] OR “medical electronics”[tiab] OR “world wide web”[tiab] OR “web based”[tiab] OR device[tiab] OR devices[tiab] OR technology[tiab] OR technologies[tiab] OR tech[tiab] OR “remote delivery”[tiab] OR “remotely delivered”[tiab] OR “mp3 player”[tiab] OR ipod[tiab] OR iPad[tiab] OR online[tiab] OR “communication technology”[tiab] OR wireless[tiab] OR “medical informatics”[Mesh] OR digital[tiab] OR online[ot] OR smartphone[ot] OR “smart phone”[ot] OR iphone[ot] OR mobile[ot] OR cellphone[ot] OR cellphones[ot] OR “cell phone”[ot] OR “cell phones”[ot] OR internet[ot] OR mhealth[ot] OR “mobile health”[ot] OR telehealth[ot] OR eHealth[ot] OR computer[ot] OR computers[ot] OR electronic[ot] OR electronics[ot] OR “medical electronics”[ot] OR “world wide web”[ot] OR “web-based”[ot] OR device[ot] OR devices[ot] OR technology[ot] OR technologies[ot] OR tech[ot] OR “mp3 player”[ot] OR ipod[ot] OR iPad[ot] OR online[ot] OR wireless[ot] OR telephone[ot] OR “telephone administered”[tiab]) AND (“Behavior Therapy”[Mesh] OR “Biofeedback, Psychology”[Mesh] OR “Desensitization, Psychologic”[Mesh] OR “relaxation therapy”[Mesh] OR “neurofeedback”[Mesh] OR “Mind-Body Therapies”[Mesh] OR “Cognitive Therapy”[Mesh] OR “meditation”[Mesh] OR “muscle relaxation”[Mesh] OR “self care”[MeSH] OR “behavior therapy”[tiab] OR “behaviour therapy”[tiab] OR “behavior therapies”[tiab] OR “behaviour therapies” OR “behavioral therapies”[tiab] OR “behavioural therapies”[tiab] OR “behavioral treatment”[tiab] OR “behavioural treatment”[tiab] OR “behavioral treatments”[tiab] OR “behavior treatment”[tiab] OR “behavioral approach”[tiab] OR “behavioral approaches”[tiab] OR biofeedback[tiab] OR biofeedbacks[tiab] OR neurofeedback[tiab] OR “cognitive therapy”[tiab] OR “cognitive therapies”[tiab] OR “cognitive behavioral therapy”[tiab] OR “cognitive behavioral treatment”[tiab] OR “cognitive behavioral treatments” OR “cognitive behavioral therapies”[tiab] OR “Cognitive-behavioral interventions”[tiab] OR “Cognitive-behavioral intervention”[tiab] OR “Psychologic Desensitization”[tiab] OR “relaxation techniques”[tiab] OR “relaxation technique”[tiab] OR “relaxation therapy”[tiab] OR “relaxation therapies”[tiab] OR “guided relaxation”[tiab] OR meditation[tiab] OR meditate[tiab] OR “Progressive muscle relaxation”[tiab] OR “neurofeedback”[tiab] OR “guided imagery”[tiab] OR “music therapy”[tiab] OR “mind-body therapy”[tiab] OR “mind-body therapies”[tiab] OR behavioral training [tiab] OR self-management [tiab] OR self-care [ot] OR psychological therapy [tiab] OR psychological therapies [tiab] OR “psychosocial support”[tiab] OR “behavior therapy”[ot] OR “behaviour therapy”[ot] OR “behavior therapies”[ot] OR “behaviour therapies” OR “behavioral therapies”[ot] OR “behavioural therapies”[ot] OR “behavioral treatment”[ot] OR “behavioural treatment”[ot] OR “behavioral treatments”[ot] OR “behavior treatment”[ot] OR “behavioral approach”[ot] OR “behavioral approaches”[ot] OR biofeedback[ot] OR neurofeedback[ot] OR “cognitive therapy”[ot] OR “cognitive therapies”[ot] OR “cognitive behavioral therapy”[ot] OR “cognitive behavioral treatment”[ot] OR “cognitive behavioral treatments” OR “cognitive behavioral therapies”[ot] OR “Cognitive-behavioral interventions”[ot] OR “Cognitive-behavioral intervention”[ot] OR “relaxation techniques”[ot] OR “relaxation technique”[ot] OR “relaxation therapy”[ot] OR “guided relaxation”[ot] OR meditation[ot] OR meditate[ot] OR “Progressive muscle relaxation”[ot] OR “neurofeedback”[ot] OR “guided imagery”[ot] OR “music therapy”[ot] OR “mind-body therapy”[ot] OR “mind-body therapies”[ot] OR behavioral training [ot] OR self-management [ot] OR self-care[ot] OR psychological therapy[ot] OR psychological therapies[ot])

Table 3 Various descriptions of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) conducted in the studies
Full size table

Rights and permissions

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/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Minen, M.T., Torous, J., Raynowska, J. et al. Electronic behavioral interventions for headache: a systematic review. J Headache Pain 17, 51 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-016-0608-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-016-0608-y

Keywords

The Journal of Headache and Pain

ISSN: 1129-2377

Contact us