- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Household income is associated with attack frequency, but not with the prevalence of headache: an analysis of self-reported headache in the general population in Germany
The Journal of Headache and Pain volume 25, Article number: 164 (2024)
Abstract
Background
Headache disorders are among the most prevalent neurological disorders worldwide. However, whether groups differing in socioeconomic position (SEP) are disproportionately affected by headache disorders has not yet been adequately clarified. Our aim was to analyse (1) the headache prevalence by socioeconomic position (SEP) and (2) the attack frequency by SEP in a German population-based adult sample.
Methods
Cross-sectional data from a random general population were used. The sample included N = 2,189 participants aged ≥ 18 years. SEP was measured using net equivalised income (NEI) and education. A binary logistic regression model tested the effect of SEP in predicting the prevalence of headache in general. Ordinal logistic regressions were modeled to predict the effect of SEP on the likelihood of attack frequency. Attack frequency was categorized in low frequency episodic headache (LFEH: 0–3 days per month), moderate frequency episodic headache (MFEH: 4–14 days per month) and chronic headache (CH: ≥ 15 days per month).
Results
Of the 2,189 participants, 891 reported headache in the last six months. Neither income nor education was associated with headache prevalence. However, significant differences between income groups were found for attack frequency. Compared to participants with NEI > 150%, those with NEI < 60% were 5.21 times more likely (95%CI 2.03, 13.36) to experience higher headache frequency, and those with NEI between 60 and 150% were 2.29 times more likely (95%CI 1.02, 5.11), with adjustments made for a set of potential confounders, including depressive symptoms.
Conclusions
To reduce headache attacks, it is essential to address both low- and middle-income groups affected by headaches. Universal public health prevention campaigns are particularly appropriate.
Introduction
From a public health perspective, headache disorders, mostly migraine and tension-type headache (TTH), impose a major societal challenge as they are one of the most disabling disorders. According to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2019, headache disorders are responsible for 5.4% of total years lived with disability (YLDs) worldwide [1]. Two key parameters for estimating YLDs are headache prevalence and attack frequency [2]. For targeted use of public-health resources to reduce the burden, it is important to find out which of these parameters is more susceptible to influences. From the public health perspective, it is worth investigating this question with regard to the socioeconomic position (SEP). Worldwide, the SEP has a strong influence on health outcomes: the lower the individual’s SEP, the higher their risk of several diseases and more severe symptoms [3, 4]. However, whether lower SEP groups are also disproportionately affected by headache disorders, measured by prevalence and attack frequency, has not yet been sufficiently clarified. To date, research has focused on analysing headache prevalence, while analyses of headache attacks have been scarce.
Although there is a large number of studies on the prevalence by SEP, the findings are inconsistent for headache in general [5,6,7,8] as well as for migraine [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30] and TTH [11, 22, 27,28,29, 31, 32] (see Fig. 1). In addition to different welfare state contexts, different measures for SEP (e.g. education, occupation, and/or income), as well as different sets of control variables may have resulted in heterogeneous results. Although the SEP measures are related, they are not interchangeable. Available literature therefore suggests using multiple socioeconomic indicators rather than a single variable to analyse health by SEP [33, 34]. With regard to control variables, it is noticeable that only one study examined the association between SEP and headache adjusted for depression [15]. This is unfortunate, because both headache [35] and SEP are associated with depression [36].
In contrast to headache prevalence, the association between SEP and attack frequency has been scarcely researched. Particularly for episodic headache (EH) (< 15 headache days per month), which affects most people with headache, while chronic headache (CH) (≥ 15 headache days per month) affects only 3–4% of the population [35,36,37]. To the best of our knowledge, only three studies analysed the association between EH and SEP. Stewart et al. (2013) found that women and men in the lowest income group were less likely to have ≤ 3 migraine days per month [12]. In the Norwegian HUNT study it was found that low SEP at baseline was associated with increased risk of having 6-14 headache days per month and chronic headache 11 years later, whereas no SEP-specific risks of having 1–6 headache days were found [37]. The authors of the American AMPP study reported a higher likelihood of low SEP in those with 8–14 migraine days per month compared to those with less frequent headache days [38]. However, it is questionable whether this association was maintained when controlling for depressive symptoms, as the literature suggests that depressive symptoms increase with increasing attack frequency [39].
To summarize the current research on headache prevalence and attack frequency across different SEP groups, we examined whether these factors are associated with net eqivalised income (NEI) and education in a German cross-sectional population-based adult sample. These analyses controlled for a range of potentially confounding factors, including depressive symptoms. In this way, the study contributes to a better understanding of the social patterns of headache burden in the population.
Methods
Participants
The analysis is based on cross-sectional data from a random general population sample (N = 2,510), collected in 2016 in Germany among inhabitants aged 14 years and older [40]. For sample selection, random multi-stage sampling procedures were employed. First, 258 regional sample points in Germany were determined (stage 1). Subsequently, 19 households per sample point were selected using the random-route procedure (stage 2). Members of households, who met the inclusion criteria (age above 14, able to read, and understand German) were randomly selected using the Kish-selection-grid technique (stage 3).
In total, 4,838 subjects were selected for the study, and 2,514 people participated. All participants provided their written informed consent. Four interviews were not analyzable, resulting in an final data set of 2,510 interviews. Reasons for non-participation included refusal to take part (n = 1,453), three unsuccessful attempts to contact the household member (n = 863), and illness or incapacity of the selected subjects to follow the interview (n = 8). To mitigate selection bias, an adjustment factor was calculated based on the German population structure regarding age, sex, household size, and population by federal state. German population parameters were obtained from the 2016 Microcensus conducted by the German Federal Statistical Office. Using this adjustment factor, a weighted random sample was created that corresponded to the structure of the German population with regard to these factors [41]. Detailed information on the adjustment weighting can be obtained from the first author.
For the present analysis, only adults were included, resulting in the exclusion of 86 individuals due to age < 18 years. The decision to exclude data from those under 18 was based on the mitigated validity of their reports: adolescents’ reports of their parents’ income generally show high levels of missing or invalid data [42, 43]. Additionally, adolescents between the ages of 14 and 18 are likely to be in school, meaning they do not yet have an educational qualification, and therefore SEP based on education can only be estimated inaccurately. Furthermore, 235 individuals were excluded due to missing data on headache prevalence, headache frequency or SEP, resulting in a final sample of N = 2,189 participants (see Fig. 2).
Questionnaire
A standardized questionnaire was used to collect data on headache, including its treatment and relevant sociodemographic variables [44]. The sociodemographic data were collected using face-to-face interviews. The questionnaire section on headache and its treatment was filled in by the respondents themselves.
Dependent variables
Headache prevalence
Information on headache prevalence is based on the participants' statements on whether they had experienced headaches in the last six months.
Headache frequency
Headache frequency was assessed using a five-point ordinal scale: (1) < 1 day per month; (2) 1–3 days per month; (3) 4–14 days per month; (4) > 14 days per month but not daily; (5) and daily. For statistical analysis, the five categories were converted into three categories. The first category included headaches that occur less frequently than four times a month, named “Low Frequency Episodic Headache” (LFEH). The second category included headaches occurring 4–14 days per month, labelled as “Moderate Frequency Episodic Headache” (MFEH). The third category included headaches that occur at least 15 days a month, labelled as “Chronic Headache” (CH). Individuals without headache were assigned to the frequency category “No headache”.
Independent variables
Income and education were used as proxies for the SEP. NEI was calculated from the data on household size and monthly net household income by dividing the monthly net household income by the square root of the number of persons living in the household [45]. Based on the NEI the sample was split into three relative income position categories. The lowest category covers all participants with an NEI below 60% of median income of the sample [46]. The second category ranges from 60 to 150% of median income. The third category covers participants with an NEI more than 150% of median income. Education was summarized according the International Standard Classification of Education 97 (ISCED-97) into three classes: lower school education (ISCED-level 1/2), intermediate school education (ISCED-level 3/4), and higher school education (ISCED-level 5/6) [47].
Covariates
Employment status was originally assessed with nine categories which were summarized for the analyse into three groups: employees; non-employed; unemployed. Sociodemographic variables comprised sex, age, marital status, living with partner, minor children living in participant's household. The residential environment was classified into rural and urban areas based on the sampling plan. A rural region was defined as less than 20,000 inhabitants living in a community that was neither close to large cities nor part of a city-region or metropolitan area [48]. Self-reported data on body weight and height were collected to calculate the Body Mass Index (BMI) (kg/m2). Obesity was defined as a BMI > 30 kg/m2 and was used as a dichotomous variable (“obesity yes/no”) [49]. Depressive symptoms were measured with the subscale of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) that encompasses two items and has sum scores ranging from 0 to 6. Scores ≥ 3 indicate the presence of significant depressive symptoms. The scales showed acceptable reliability with McDonald's omega of ω = 0.85 for PHQ-4 [50]. Depressive symptoms were used as a dichotomous variable (“depressive symptoms yes/no”). Use of outpatient care was measured by asking those participants who reported that they had headaches in the last 6 months whether they had ever consulted a physician (or more than one) for headache (yes/no).
Statistical analysis
The sample structure was compared to the population structure regarding a representative distribution by household size, age, sex, and federal state. To correct for deviations of the sample, a weighting factor was applied to improve the representativeness of the sample. All analyses were conducted with the weighted sample; however, absolute numbers of cases are presented unweighted, as the sum of weighted factors differs from that of unweighted factors in a subsample analysis.
Pearson’s χ2 Test was used for bivariate analysis. The interpretation of results between categorical variables was based on the recommendations by Agresti [51]. This author suggests the use of adjusted standardized residuals to evaluate deviations between observed and expected frequencies. An adjusted residual exceeding 2 or 3 in absolute value indicates a rather unlikely deviation which can be interpreted as significant. In the present analysis, deviations exceeding a value of 2 were considered significant.
A binary logistic regression was performed to predict the effect of SEP, adjusted for sociodemographics, family and health-related characteristics, on the likelihood of having had any headache in the last 6 months. All variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in the equation.
Ordinal logistic regressions were modeled to predict the effect of SEP on the likelihood of headache attack frequency as ordinal dependent variable (“LFEH”, “MFEH”, and “CH”). We excluded individuals without headaches from this regression analysis to better identify particularly vulnerable subgroups among those affected. These analyses were sequentially adjusted for a set of sociodemographic and family variables (Model 2), and health-related variables (Model 3). Prerequisites of ordinal logistic regressions were tested. There were no violations of the assumption of no multicollinearity and proportional odds. The model fit was assessed using four indices: 1) Likelihood Ratio Test (compares the null deviance to the residual deviance; a large difference suggests the model explains data variability well; the difference follows a χ2 distribution, and a significant p-value indicates that the model with predictors is significantly better than the null model), 2) Goodness-of-Fit Tests (includes Pearson’s χ2 Test, which compares observed and expected frequencies, and the Deviance Goodness-of-Fit Test, which compares observed outcomes to model predictions; non-significant p-values suggest a good model fit), 3) Pseudo-R2 Measure (indicates the proportion of variability explained by the model; common measures include Nagelkerke's R2, which adjusts Cox and Snell's R2 to reach 1; higher values indicate a better fit), and 4) Test of Proportional Odds (assesses whether the relationship between each pair of outcome groups is consistent; non-significant p-values suggest that the proportional odds assumption holds and the model is appropriate).
The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed using the formulas outlined below:
A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 27 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Results
Sample characteristics
The sample characteristics regarding headache, sociodemographic and health-related variables are shown in Table 1. The weighted 6-month prevalence was 40.2% of all types of headache (95% CI: 38.1%-42.3%). LFEH affected 32.8% (95% CI: 30.8%-34.8%) of the participants. 6.0% (95% CI: 5.0%-7.0%) reported MFEH. CH affected 1.5% of the participants (95% CI: 1.0%-2.0%). NEI and education correlated weakly, Spearman’s ρ = 0.231, p < 0.001. Regarding the bivariate analysis, there was an association between NEI and headache frequency, χ2(4) = 47.6, p < 0.001. Participants with an NEI of less than 60% of the median income were over-represented among those with CH. Participants with more than 150% of the median income were over-represented in the group with LFEH (see Fig. 3). No association between education and headache frequency was found, χ2(4) = 4.2, p = 0.375.
Association between SEP and headache prevalence
A binary logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate whether NEI and education predicted the probability of having headache. Sociodemographic, family and health-related characteristics, including depressive symptoms, were considered as control variables. Neither of the two SEP-variables was a significant predictor variable. A higher OR of having any type of headache was found for women, persons younger than 75 years, obese persons und those with depressive symptoms. All model coefficients and OR can be found in Table 2.
Association between SEP and headache frequency
Ordinal logistic regressions were conducted to predict the effect of SEP on headache frequency (“LFEH”, “MFEH”, and “CH”) when additional factors are considered in a stepwise manner (Table 3). It was found that NEI, but not education, was significantly associated with headache frequency. Compared to participants with an NEI of more than 150% of median income, participants with an NEI of less than 60% and participants with an NEI of 60% to 150% of median income were more likely to report higher headache frequency (Model 1). This association was weakened but remained significant when sociodemographic and family variables (Model 2), and health-related variables were added (Model 3). Participants with an NEI of less than 60% of the median income were 5.21 times more likely to experience higher headache frequency (95%CI 2.03, 13.36). Participants with an NEI between 60 and 150% of the median income were 2.29 time more likely to experience higher headache frequency (95%CI 1.02, 5.11). Other significant predictors were widowhood, p = 0.004, obesity, p = 0.001 being classified with depressive symptoms, p < 0.001, and consultation with a physician due to headache, p < 0.001. All coefficients can be found in Table 3.
Discussion
The present German population-based study examined whether people are differently affected by headache disorders according to their SEP, measured by income and education when controlled for depressive symptoms, in addition to a broad set of further potentially confounding factors. For this purpose, we analysed headache prevalence, an aspect in which inconsistent findings prevail, and attack frequency, an aspect that has so far been limited to CH, while LFEH and MFEH have been largely neglected in discussions about the link between SEP and headache.
First, headache prevalence in a representative German sample was neither associated with income nor with education. Second, attack frequency was predicted by income. Our finding shows that individuals with low and medium income experience more headache attacks than those with high income. Differences were not explained by depressive symptoms or obesity. No differences were found between headache attacks and education. Furthermore, we demonstrated, that the association between income and headache frequency persisted even after controlling for headache-specific physician consultations.
Given the cross-sectional nature of the study design, we postulate a potential bidirectional relationship between income level and attack frequency. Since stress is the most commonly self-reported headache trigger [52], we assume higher stress levels in the low- and median- compared to those in the high-income group. For low-income individuals, high exposure to stress is well-documented. Lower income is associated with higher levels of allostatic load, which refers to the cumulative burden of chronic stress and life events [53]. In the median-income sector, various structural changes have occurred in Germany, including an increase in temporary employment contracts, part-time work, self-employment, low-wage rates, and jobs with a high risk of automation [54]. Empirical evidence indicates that approximately 60% of individuals with median income in Germany are concerned about their financial situation and retirement security [55]. Economic stress can directly increase susceptibility to headache attacks. Additionally, it may exacerbate headache attacks through sleep disturbances, which is the second most common trigger for headaches [52]. Furthermore, individuals experiencing economic stress are more likely to have difficulties with family and friends [56]. In addition, aerobic exercise and strength training, which are known to reduce headache attacks [57], are performed less frequently by those under economic stress [58]. Conversely, headache attacks can lead to financial burdens due to their impact on work. A study in the United States found that individuals with chronic headaches are less likely to be employed compared to those with low headache frequency [59].
Our results on headache frequency are largely consistent with previous studies but go beyond these in three aspects. First, they show that the social gradient is not limited to frequent [37, 60] and chronic headache [18, 37, 61], but applies to the entire spectrum from low frequency to chronic headache. Second, the higher frequency of attacks not only relates to people with low income [12, 37], but also includes people with a medium income. Third, we are the first to provide support that the association persists even when considering depressive symptoms as a potential confounding factor. The absence of an association between headache prevalence and SEP in our study corresponds to three-quarters of population-based previous [7, 9, 16, 19, 21, 22] and current European studies [11]. However, none of these analyses controlled for depressive symptoms. There is only one study on the association between SEP and prevalence that also considered depression, a Spanish population-based study of migraine [15]. Our finding that depressive symptoms independently predict headache prevalence is consistent with the results of that study. While in our study headache prevalence did not differ by SEP, in the Spanish study it did. In contrast to the European literature, studies from the United States consistently reported higher prevalences at lower SEP [10, 12, 20, 24, 62,63,64]. We attribute this discrepancy between U.S. American and European findings mainly to the greater income inequality in the US compared to European countries [65]. Our assumption that income-specific headache prevalence occurs primarily in countries with high income inequality is supported by findings from Brazil [17, 66], Turkey [13] and Spain [15].
The present study has several limitations: First, the results do not permit conclusions about specific types of headache, such as migraine and TTH. Second, the cross-sectional design is a important limitation, as it does not allow for conclusions regarding the directionality or development of the association between SEP and headache frequency. Longitudinal studies, however, support the Social Causation Hypothesis, which posits that low SEP is a risk factor for increased headache frequency [37]. It is also possible that individuals with a higher SEP receive better medical treatment. Additionally, according to the Social Selection Hypothesis, frequent headaches may negatively impact occupational performance and limit future employment opportunities, potentially leading to socioeconomic decline. Third, our sample included only a small number of individuals with CH, which may introduce bias. Finally, using a 6-month prevalence measure complicates comparisons with studies that used a 1-year prevalence.
The strengths of this study include the testing of different headache frequency groups (LFEH, MFEH and CH), as well as the inclusion of a wide range of possible confounding variables. Furthermore, the study cohort was randomly selected, population-based and representative of the German population aged ≥ 18 years.
Our results have several implications. To have greatest impact in reducing headache attacks, it is essential to target those affected in both low and middle-income groups. Universal prevention campaigns in the field of public health seem to be particularly suitable for this purpose. These campaigns should focus on both stress reduction and enhancement of coping skills. A combination of structural and behavioral preventive measures appears to be the most effective approach. Physicians should also be aware of the relationship between income and headache frequency in low- and middle-income patients. Moreover, this connection should be acknowledged by both stakeholders and practitioners.
Conclusion
We found that while headache prevalence is not associated with socioeconomic position (SEP), headache frequency is. Among individuals with headaches, those with low- or middle-income are more likely to experience frequent headaches and are at a higher risk of developing chronic headaches. Physicians should be aware of the link between income and headache frequency, especially in low- and middle-income patients. This relationship should also be recognized by stakeholders and practitioners. Future research should investigate which protective factors contribute to a lower likelihood of high headache frequency among individuals with high income.
Availability of data and materials
The dataset generated and analyzed during this study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Abbreviations
- BMI:
-
Body Mass Index
- CH:
-
Chronic Headache
- CI:
-
Confidence Interval
- EH:
-
Episodic Headache
- GBD study:
-
Global Burden of Disease study
- GMV:
-
Gray Matter Volume
- ICHD-III:
-
International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition
- ISCED-97:
-
International Standard Classification of Education 97
- LFEH:
-
Low Frequency Episodic Headache
- LL:
-
Log-Likelihood
- MFEH:
-
Moderate Frequency Episodic Headache
- NEI:
-
Net Equivalised Household Income
- OR:
-
Odds Ratio
- PHQ-4:
-
Patient Health Questionnaire (4-item)
- SEP:
-
Socioeconomic Position
- TTH:
-
Tension-Type Headache
- YLDs:
-
Years Lived with Disability
References
Network GBoDC (2020) Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (GBD 2019)
Steiner TJ, Stovner LJ (2023) Global epidemiology of migraine and its implications for public health and health policy. Nat Rev Neurol 19(2):109–117
Jendreizik LT, von Wirth E, Döpfner M (2023) Familial factors associated with symptom severity in children and adolescents with ADHD: a meta-analysis and supplemental review. J Atten Disord 27(2):124–144
Cox AM, McKevitt C, Rudd AG, Wolfe CD (2006) Socioeconomic status and stroke. Lancet Neurol 5(2):181–188
Mitsikostas D, Tsaklakidou D, Athanasiadis N, Thomas A (1996) The prevalence of headache in Greece: correlations to latitude and climatological factors. Headache. 36(3):168–73
Boardman H, Thomas E, Croft P, Millson D (2003) Epidemiology of headache in an English district. Cephalalgia 23(2):129–137
Rieder A, Lobentanz I, Zeitlhofer J, Mitsche N, Lawrence K, Schwarz B et al (2004) Background morbidity of headache in an adult general population. Wien Klin Wochenschr 116(5):176–181
Straube A, Aicher B, Förderreuther S, Eggert T, Köppel J, Möller S et al (2013) Period prevalence of self-reported headache in the general population in Germany from 1995–2005 and 2009: results from annual nationwide population-based cross-sectional surveys. J Headache Pain 14(1):1–12
Launer LJ, Terwindt GM, Ferrari MD (1999) The prevalence and characteristics of migraine in a population-based cohort: the GEM study. Neurology. 53(3):537
Burch R, Rizzoli P, Loder E (2021) The prevalence and impact of migraine and severe headache in the United States: Updated age, sex, and socioeconomic-specific estimates from government health surveys. Headache. 61(1):60–8
Porst M, Wengler A, Leddin J, Neuhauser H, Katsarava Z, von der Lippe E et al (2020) Migraine and tension-type headache in Germany. Prevalence and disease severity from the BURDEN 2020 Burden of Disease Study. J Health Monit 5(Suppl 6):2
Stewart WF, Roy J, Lipton RB (2013) Migraine prevalence, socioeconomic status, and social causation. Neurology 81(11):948–955
Ertas M, Baykan B, Kocasoy Orhan E, Zarifoglu M, Karli N, Saip S et al (2012) One-year prevalence and the impact of migraine and tension-type headache in Turkey: a nationwide home-based study in adults. J Headache Pain 13(2):147–157
Le H, Tfelt-Hansen P, Skytthe A, Kyvik KO, Olesen J (2011) Association between migraine, lifestyle and socioeconomic factors: a population-based cross-sectional study. J Headache Pain 12(2):157–172
Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C, Hernández-Barrera V, Carrasco-Garrido P, Alonso-Blanco C, Palacios-Cena D, Jiménez-Sánchez S et al (2010) Population-based study of migraine in Spanish adults: relation to socio-demographic factors, lifestyle and co-morbidity with other conditions. J Headache Pain 11(2):97–104
Radtke A, Neuhauser H (2009) Prevalence and burden of headache and migraine in Germany. Headache. 49(1):79–89
Queiroz LP, Peres M, Piovesan E, Kowacs F, Ciciarelli M, Souza J et al (2009) A nationwide population-based study of migraine in Brazil. Cephalalgia 29(6):642–649
Katsarava Z, Dzagnidze A, Kukava M, Mirvelashvili E, Djibuti M, Janelidze M et al (2009) Primary headache disorders in the Republic of Georgia Prevalence and risk factors. Neurology 73(21):1796–1803
Molarius A, Tegelberg Å, Öhrvik J (2008) Socio-economic factors, lifestyle, and headache disorders—a population-based study in Sweden. Headache. 48(10):1426–37
Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Diamond M, Freitag F, Reed M, Stewart WF (2007) Migraine prevalence, disease burden, and the need for preventive therapy. Neurology 68(5):343–349
Steiner TJ, Scher AI, Stewart WF, Kolodner K, Liberman J, Lipton RB (2003) The prevalence and disability burden of adult migraine in England and their relationships to age, gender and ethnicity. Cephalalgia 23(7):519–527
Rasmussen BK (1992) Migraine and tension-type headache in a general population: psychosocial factors. Int J Epidemiol 21(6):1138–1143
O’Brien B, Goeree R, Streiner D (1994) Prevalence of migraine headache in Canada: a population-based survey. Int J Epidemiol 23(5):1020–1026
Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Diamond S, Diamond ML, Reed M (2001) Prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States: data from the American Migraine Study II. Headache. 41(7):646–57
Jette N, Patten S, Williams J, Becker W, Wiebe S (2008) Comorbidity of migraine and psychiatric disorders—a national population-based study. Headache. 48(4):501–16
Henry P, Michel P, Brochet B, Dartigues JF, Tison S, Salamon R (1992) A Nationwide Survey of Migraine in France: Prevalence and Clinical Features in Adults Cephalalgia 12(4):229–237
Göbel H, Petersen-Braun M, Soyka D (1994) The Epidemiology of Headache in Germany: A Nationwide Survey of A Representative Sample on The Basis of The Headache Classification of The International Headache Society. Cephalalgia 14(2):97–106
Köseoglu E, Nacar M, Talaslioglu A, Cetinkaya F (2003) Epidemiological and Clinical Characteristics of Migraine and Tension Type Headache in 1146 Females in Kayseri Turkey Cephalalgia 23(5):381–388
Chu MK, Kim DW, Kim BK, Kim JM, Jang TW, Park JW, Lee KS, Cho SJ (2013) Gender-specific influence of socioeconomic status on the prevalence of migraine and tension-type headache: the results from the Korean headache survey. J Headache Pain 14:1–7
Dahlöf C, Linde M (2001) One-Year Prevalence of Migraine in Sweden: A Population-Based Study in Adults. Cephalalgia. 21(6):664–671
Gobel H, Petersen-Braun M, Soyka D (1994) The epidemiology of headache in Germany: a nationwide survey of a representative sample on the basis of the headache classification of the International Headache Society. Cephalalgia 14(2):97–106
Schwartz BS, Stewart WF, Simon D, Lipton RB (1998) Epidemiology of tension-type headache. JAMA 279(5):381–383
Geyer S, Hemström Ö, Peter R, Vågerö D (2006) Education, income, and occupational class cannot be used interchangeably in social epidemiology. Empirical evidence against a common practice. J Epidemiol Community Health. 60(9):804–10
Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, Chideya S, Marchi KS, Metzler M et al (2005) Socioeconomic status in health research: one size does not fit all. JAMA 294(22):2879–2888
Caponnetto V, Deodato M, Robotti M, Koutsokera M, Pozzilli V, Galati C et al (2021) Comorbidities of primary headache disorders: a literature review with meta-analysis. J Headache Pain 22(1):1–18
Hoebel J, Maske UE, Zeeb H, Lampert T (2017) Social inequalities and depressive symptoms in adults: the role of objective and subjective socioeconomic status. PLoS One 12(1):e0169764
Hagen K, Vatten L, Stovner L, Zwart J, Krokstad S, Bovim G (2002) Low socio-economic status is associated with increased risk of frequent headache: a prospective study of 22718 adults in Norway. Cephalalgia 22(8):672–679
Buse DC, Reed ML, Fanning KM, Bostic RC, Lipton RB (2020) Demographics, headache features, and comorbidity profiles in relation to headache frequency in people with migraine: results of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. Headache. 60(10):2340–56
Zwart JA, Dyb G, Hagen K, Ødegård K, Dahl A, Bovim G et al (2003) Depression and anxiety disorders associated with headache frequency. The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study. Eur J Neurol. 10(2):147–52
Müller B, Dresler T, Gaul C, Glass Ä, Jürgens TP, Kropp P et al (2019) More attacks and analgesic use in old age: self-reported headache across the lifespan in a German sample. Front Neurol. 10:1000
Schmich P, Lemcke J, Zeisler ML, Müller A, Allen J, Wetzstein M (2018) Ad-hoc-Studien im Robert Koch-Institut
Wardle J, Robb K, Johnson F (2002) Assessing socioeconomic status in adolescents: the validity of a home affluence scale. J Epidemiol Community Health 56(8):595–599
Boyce W, Torsheim T, Currie C, Zambon A (2006) The family affluence scale as a measure of national wealth: validation of an adolescent self-report measure. Soc Indic Res 78:473–487
Müller B, Dresler T, Gaul C, Jürgens T, Kropp P, Rehfeld A et al (2020) Use of outpatient medical care by headache patients in Germany: a population-based cross-sectional study. J Headache Pain 21(1):1–10
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013) OECD framework for statistics on the distribution of household income, consumption and wealth. OECD Publishing
Darvas Z (2019) Why is it so hard to reach the EU’s poverty target? Soc Indic Res 141(3):1081–1105
Schneider SL (2008) Applying the ISCED-97 to the Geman educational qualification. In SL Schneider (Ed) The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED-97): An Evaluation of Content and Criterion Validity for 15 European countries. MZES. 76–102.
Löffler U, Behrens K, von der Heyde C (2014) Die Historie der ADM-Stichproben. In ADM Arbeitskreis Deutscher Markt- und Sozialforschungsinstitut e.V. (Ed). Stichproben-Verfahren in der Umfrageforschung. Springer VS. 67-84.
Richard A, Margaritis A (2022) World Health Statistics 2022: Monitoring Health for the SDGs. World Health Organization, Sustainable Development Goals Geneva
Wicke FS, Krakau L, Löwe B, Beutel ME, Brähler E (2022) Update of the standardization of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) in the general population. J Affect Disord 312:310–314
Agresti A. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis . Hoboken: John Willey and Sons. Inc; 2007. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470114754.
Pellegrino ABW, Davis-Martin RE, Houle TT, Turner DP, Smitherman TA (2018) Perceived triggers of primary headache disorders: a meta-analysis. Cephalalgia 38(6):1188–1198
Guidi J, Lucente M, Sonino N, Fava GA (2020) Allostatic load and its impact on health: a systematic review. Psychother Psychosom 90(1):11–27
Consiglio V, Geppert C, Königs S, Levy H, Vindics A. Bröckelt die Mittelschicht. Risiken und Chancen für mittlere Einkommensgruppen auf dem deutschen Arbeitsmarkt Übersetzung durch Bertelsmann Stiftung, Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2021.
Zucco A, Özerdogan A (2021) Verteilungsbericht 2021: Die Einkommenssituation und Abstiegsängste der Mittelschicht. WSI Report 69
Sturgeon JA, Arewasikporn A, Okun MA, Davis MC, Ong AD, Zautra AJ (2016) The psychosocial context of financial stress: Implications for inflammation and psychological health. Psychosom Med 78(2):134
Lemmens J, De Pauw J, Van Soom T, Michiels S, Versijpt J, Van Breda E et al (2019) The effect of aerobic exercise on the number of migraine days, duration and pain intensity in migraine: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Headache Pain 20:1–9
Beenackers MA, Kamphuis CB, Giskes K, Brug J, Kunst AE, Burdorf A et al (2012) Socioeconomic inequalities in occupational, leisure-time, and transport related physical activity among European adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 9:1–23
Stewart WF, Wood GC, Manack A, Varon SF, Buse DC, Lipton RB (2010) Employment and work impact of chronic migraine and episodic migraine. J Occup Environ Med. 52:8–14
Scher AI, Stewart WF, Liberman J, Lipton RB (1998) Prevalence of frequent headache in a population sample. Headache. 38(7):497–506
Westergaard ML, Glümer C, Hansen EH, Jensen RH (2014) Prevalence of chronic headache with and without medication overuse: associations with socioeconomic position and physical and mental health status. Pain. 155(10):2005–13
Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Celentano DD, Reed ML (1992) Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States: relation to age, income, race, and other sociodemographic factors. JAMA 267(1):64–69
Stang P, Sternfeld B, Sidney S (1996) Migraine headache in a prepaid health plan: ascertainment, demographics, physiological, and behavioral factors. Headache. 36(2):69–76
Winter AC, Berger K, Buring JE, Kurth T (2012) Associations of socioeconomic status with migraine and non-migraine headache. Cephalalgia 32(2):159–170
Hoffmann F, Lee DS, Lemieux T (2020) Growing Income Inequality in the United States and Other Advanced Economies. J Econ Perspect 34(4):52–78. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.34.4.52
Queiroz LP, Peres MFP, Piovesan EJ, Kowacs F, Ciciarelli MC, Souza JA, Zukerman E (2009) A Nationwide Population-Based Study of Tension-Type Headache in Brazil Headache. J Head Face Pain 49(1):71–78
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Joanne Eysell for her language editing and Leopold Eppler for his technical editing support.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The study was funded by the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG e.V., http://dmkg.de/).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
BM: Formal analysis, Writing-original draft, Figures. CG: Conceptualization, Methodology. OR: Formal analysis. TPJ: Conceptualization, Methodology. PK: Conceptualization, Methodology. RR: Formal analysis. AS: Conceptualization, Methodology. EB: Methodology. SF: Conceptualization, Methodology. FR: Formal analysis. DR: Conceptualization, Methodology. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Leipzig, reviewed and approved the study (297/16-ek). All participants gave their written informed consent.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
CG has received honoraria for consulting and lectures within the past three years from Allergan/AbbVie, Lilly, Novartis Pharma, Hormosan Pharma, Grünenthal, Sanofi-Aventis, Weber & Weber, Lundbeck, Perfood, Vectura, Chordate, betapharm, Pfitzer, and TEVA. His research is supported by a grant of the German Research Foundation (DFG). He does not hold any stocks of pharmaceutical companies. TJ has served on advisory boards and/or has received honoraria for lectures from Alleregan, Grünethal, Hormosan, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Sanofi, and TEVA. PK has received funding from Takeda, travel and lecture fees from Novartis, Lilly, and Teva. RR has received travel grants and/or honoraria from Allergan/AbbVie, Hormosan, Lilly, Novartis and Teva. AS has received honoraria for lectures and consultations within the past 3 years from Allergan, Hormosan, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. SF has received honoraria for lectures and consultations within the past 3 years from Allergan, Hormosan, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Sanofi, and TEVA. FR has served on advisory boards and/or has received honoraria for lectures from Alleregan/Abbvie, Hormosan, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Ipsen, and TEVA. TD has received honoraria for consulting and lectures within the past 3 years from Hormosan Pharma, Novartis Pharma, and TEVA. EB, BM, and OR declare that they have nothing to disclose
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Müller, B., Gaul, C., Reis, O. et al. Household income is associated with attack frequency, but not with the prevalence of headache: an analysis of self-reported headache in the general population in Germany. J Headache Pain 25, 164 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-024-01844-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-024-01844-w