Migraine causes major health impairment and disability. Psychological interventions offer an addition to pharmacotherapy but they are not currently recommended by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) or available in the National Health Service. We aimed to systematically review evidence on the efficacy of psychological interventions for migraine in adults. A search was done of MEDLINE, psychINFO, http://www.opengrey.eu, the meta-register of controlled trials and bibliographies. Twenty-four papers were included and rated independently by two people using the Yates scale, which has 35 points. Cochrane recommendations are that high quality reports score above the mid-point (18 points). Methods used in 17/24 papers were rated ‘high quality’. However, frequently descriptions of key areas such as randomisation methods were omitted. Eighteen studies measured effects of psychological interventions on headache-related outcomes, fifteen reporting significant improvements, ranging 20–67 %. Interventions also produced improvements in psychological outcomes. Few trials measured or reported improvement in disability or quality of life. We conclude that evidence supports the efficacy of psychological interventions in migraine. Over half of the studies were from the USA, which did not provide universal health care at the time of the study, so it is difficult to generalise results to typical populations in receipt of publically funded health services. We agree with the NICE recommendation that high quality pragmatic randomised controlled trials are needed in the UK.
Migraine is a profoundly debilitating condition ranked by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as one of the top 20 causes of disability worldwide . It results in loss of quality of life (QoL) as well as having a significant impact on society as a whole. In the United Kingdom (UK), approximately 25 million work days are lost to migraine each year, with headache disorders estimated to cost the economy in excess of £5 billion per year [2, 3]. Current treatment for migraine is primarily focussed on pharmacological interventions, however, these treatments only show moderate efficacy. With headache disorders now considered a bio-psychosocial phenomenon, pharmacotherapy fails to address underlying psychological and social factors influencing headache . Evidence also shows that migraine may be comorbid with psychiatric conditions, notably anxiety and depression . As such, psychological interventions are considered as a possible alternative or adjunct to pharmacotherapy.
The main psychological interventions employed as treatment for migraine include relaxation training (RT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and biofeedback (BF). Despite over 40 years of research into these treatments and endorsement by organisations worldwide including the US Headache Consortium and WHO, they are not currently recommended for use in migraine patients in the UK [6, 7]. However, in 2012, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued a research recommendation for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) to be conducted to determine the efficacy of psychological interventions for treatment of chronic headache, perhaps paving the way for future provision of these interventions in UK clinical practice . To this end, a pilot trial was undertaken at King’s College London to assess the feasibility of trialling CBT combined with RT for chronic migraine in adults . In this context, we reviewed the literature on psychological interventions for migraine at this time.
Goslin et al.  previously systematically reviewed psychological interventions for migraine in 1999 concluding that BF, RT and CBT have modest efficacy. Subsequent systematic reviews have since focussed on BF and paediatric populations [11–13]. Therefore, an up-to-date overview of the psychological interventions for adult migraineurs is currently needed. In light of this, we aimed to systematically review the evidence regarding the efficacy of psychological interventions for treatment of adult migraine since 1999.
Trials were included if they (1) included participants with a diagnosis of migraine; (2) employed BF, RT and/or CBT as an intervention; (3) were published from 1999 to 2014; (4) were a RCT; (5) were in English.
Studies were excluded if (1) they did not report a specific headache diagnosis; (2) they included populations of other headache disorders such as cluster headache; (3) they employed non-psychological interventions such as physical therapy; (4) there were no results published; (5) only physiological outcomes were reported.
Studies with mixed populations of migraine and tension type headache (TTH) were included because, these disorders represent a heterogeneous group and to exclude such studies would exclude a significant part of the migraine literature. Goslin et al.  also included such studies in their review.
An electronic search was carried out, for published and unpublished trials, of the databases (1) MEDLINE; (2) psychINFO; (3) opengrey.eu; and (4) the meta-register of controlled trials. This was carried out using the key words “migraine disorder”, “migraine with aura”, “migraine without aura”, “migraine” and “migraine headache” combined with “cognitive therapy”, “behaviour therapy”, “cognitive behavioural therapy”, “relaxation therapy”, “relaxation training” and “biofeedback”. A manual search of relevant bibliographies was also performed.
Texts included were quality assessed by two independent people using the Yates scale . After one round of ratings, they were compared, and if there were disagreements, raters reassessed in a second round of ratings. Subsequently, further disagreements were taken to the principal investigator (Leone Ridsdale) for resolution. The Yates scale is scored out of 35 points with 26 items assessed, including some specific to psychological interventions such as assessment of therapist training and treatment expectations. This scale has been deemed to have good construct validity and reliability . Furthermore, it has had a rigorous development through a standardised procedure [14, 15]. The ‘therapist training’ criterion of the scale was excluded when a therapist was irrelevant to the intervention such as in ‘self-help’ treatments. In this case, trials were scored out of 33 instead of 35. A percentage was calculated from the final score so that trials could be compared regardless of whether they were scored out of 33 or 35. A Cochrane review used the mid-point (score of 18) as the divider between a ‘high quality’ and ‘low quality’ study . So with ratings converted to percentages in this review, a score ≥50 % was deemed high quality and a score ≤49 % was deemed low quality.
The initial database search returned 1123 hits with a further two records identified through bibliographic searching. Following screening and full text assessment, 24 publications were included in the review. Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram of the review process.
Table 1 shows a summary of publications included in the review. Taking account of secondary analyses (see Table 1: 3b, 12b, 17b and 17c) and follow up studies (see Table 1: 10b), there were 19 separate studies.
Twelve studies included a population with a diagnosis of migraine only, and seven included populations with a diagnosis of migraine and/or TTH. Ten studies were based on North American populations; the remainder were European (n = 6), Asian (n = 2) and Australian (n = 1), with none from the UK.
Trialists tended to opt for interventions consisting of a combination of psychological treatments, with CBT + RT, the most commonly adopted approach (n = 6). Other treatment combinations included BF + RT (n = 2) and combinations of all three modalities (n = 2). One study employed CBT on its own, four RT on its own and two BF on its own. Two studies used interventions that did not strictly fall into the CBT, RT or BF category. These employed meditation and behavioural sleep management as interventions, which were deemed directly related and so were included in the review.
Comparison groups used in the studies were variable (see Table 1 for details). Most commonly, a wait-list control group was used (n = 5). Other control groups used included pharmacological interventions, self-help and self-relaxation.
The outcome measures used fell into four categories: headache, psychological, disability and QoL. Eighteen studies directly measured the effect of the intervention on headache outcome measures. Fifteen of these reported that psychological interventions significantly improved headache outcome measures ranging from 20 to 67 %. Eleven studies reported headache frequency/days as measured by daily self-reporting, the recommended outcome measure for headache trials [41, 42]. Studies showed a 21–67 % improvement in this measure, after intervention (see Table 1). The largest improvement was seen when a combination of CBT, RT and BF were provided in conjunction with pharmacotherapy . Fifteen studies assessed psychological outcomes with four out of eight studies reporting significant improvements in anxiety and six out of ten reporting improvements in depression, ranging 14–32 % and 18–62 %, respectively. Eight studies assessed disability with psychological interventions yielding improvements of 28–44 % in four of the studies. Seven assessed impact on QoL, with three reporting improved QoL following intervention, ranging from 5 to 39 %.
Seventeen out of the 24 publications were graded as high quality. Nevertheless, descriptions of key areas of methodology were omitted. For example, despite all publications reporting that participants were randomised, only nine provided an adequate description of randomisation. Similarly, publications often failed to report how they minimised allocation bias and measurement bias. Only four publications were deemed to have adequate control groups that were well matched to the intervention group and only three used outcome measures that were validated. Only one study was blinded to study participants, but this is difficult in complex-intervention trials, and only one study assessed the treatment expectations of study participants.
The range of efficacy of psychological interventions was broad, from 20 to 67 %. There was no evidence to indicate that one approach of CBT, RT or BF was superior to another. Since Goslin et al.  last reviewed the literature in 1999, the most favoured behavioural approach to migraine has been CBT + RT, in particular, minimal-contact interventions. These low intensity interventions demonstrated a modest efficacy in migraine reduction, which is of particular relevance because, such approaches are likely to be less costly, hence, potentially more cost-effective . A recent paper provides some understanding of patients’ views using qualitative methods, with interviews [9, 44]. Combining trial methodology with qualitative methods is recommended by the Medical Research Council, but so far not used in trials of psychological interventions for migraine . The study of minimal-contact CBT + RT reported that participants found the relaxation aspects of therapy easier to implement. CBT components of therapy were more challenging to learn and apply in the context of a minimal-contact intervention . Improvements in headache seen in this review in studies using CBT related interventions are less than those reported by Goslin et al. . This is in part due to more intensive approaches used by earlier studies. Higher contact therapy, unsurprisingly, has had a larger effect than minimal contact, so a balance must be struck to maximise efficacy and minimise cost .
In our review, we note a large range in the efficacy of psychological interventions for migraine. Differences in the intensity of therapeutic contact may in part explain this. However, it may also be attributed to diversity in therapeutic interventions that make up CBT, RT and BF. For example, of the studies that employed RT as part of their intervention, both autogenic training and progressive muscle relaxation were employed in different studies as well as combinations of the two. CBT interventions were particularly diverse, combining various aspects of education and management strategies for triggers, stress and fear among others. This significant heterogeneity within intervention types makes it difficult to compare results and ascertain if there is an optimum therapy design. Few studies compare the effect of behavioural interventions with pharmacological interventions; however, of the two that did, no significant differences in efficacy were noted [22, 33]. Pharmacotherapy and behavioural therapy may be complementary in nature with the greatest magnitude of reduction (67 %) in headache frequency achieved by implementing a combination of the two .
Studies in our sample were often lacking in quality in key areas. Problems in methodology were similarly reported in the review by Rains et al. . In our sample, poor reporting of randomisation methods was common. Blinding was also a challenge, with only 1 study blinding subjects. However, considering that blinding in psychological interventions is often not possible, one could assess the expectations of patient to treatment as an alternative. Still, only 1 reported such an assessment, making excluding ‘placebo’ effects difficult. Few studies used outcome measures that were all considered valid. This is in part because, the recommended outcome measure for headache trials is daily self-report headache frequency/days, which strictly speaking is not a validated measure, therefore, the Yates scale may have shown unnecessary bias against these studies [41, 42].
There were several limitations to our review. Firstly, studies included populations of not only migraine but also TTH. This was done to ensure that we included as much of the migraine trial evidence as possible. However, we cannot be sure with these studies whether treatment effects were due to effects on migraine or TTH or both; this may also be a reason behind the wide range in efficacy that interventions appeared to have. Secondly, the outcome measures of the studies in our sample were heterogeneous. This makes it difficult for us to make a comparison between all of the studies and draw solid conclusions regarding efficacy. We have illustrated percentage reduction of headache frequency as measured by prospectively recorded self-report measures in Table 1. This is a recommended outcome measure, however, the number of studies using this was limited. We did not include other headache outcome measures such as headache index because, these are not favoured by guidelines . Furthermore, headache frequency reported retrospectively was not included because, they are less reliable than prospective studies of headache frequency [41, 48]. In future, the use of a core outcome set would reduce heterogeneity and strengthen the evidence-base for psychological interventions for migraine.
The evidence included suggests that psychological interventions can be effective for migraine; a significant portion of this evidence favoured a CBT + RT approach. The evidence-base is still lacking in quality, and participants were not generally representative of those receiving publicly universal care, as provided in the National Health Service. The NICE guidelines call for pragmatic RCT’s of psychological interventions for headache . Our pilot trial begins to address this issue and may provide foundations for further testing of psychological interventions for migraine in the UK .
World Health Organisation (2001) The World Health Report: Mental health: New understanding, new hope. Geneva
Steiner TJ, Scher AI, Stewart WF et al (2003) The prevalence and disability burden of adult migraine in England and their relationships to age, gender and ethnicity. Cephalalgia 23:519–527. doi:10.1046/j.1468-2982.2003.00568.x
McCrone P, Seed PT, Dowson AJ et al (2011) Service use and costs for people with headache: a UK primary care study. J Headache Pain 12:617–623. doi:10.1007/s10194-011-0362-0
Andrasik F, Buse DC, Grazzi L (2009) Behavioral medicine for migraine and medication overuse headache. Curr Pain Headache Rep 13:241–248. doi:10.1007/s11916-009-0041-x
Hamelsky SW, Lipton RB (2006) Psychiatric comorbidity of migraine. Headache 46:1327–1333
Campbell JK, Penzien DB, Wall EM (1999) Evidenced-Based Guidelines For Migraine Headache: Behavioral and Physical Treatments. Prepared for the US Headache Consortium. Available at: http://tools.aan.com/professionals/practice/pdfs/gl0089.pdf. Accessed 26/03/16
Holroyd KA, Penzien DB (1993) Self-management of recurrent headache. World Health Organization, Geneva
National Institute of Clinical Excellence (2012) Headaches: Diagnosis and management of headaches in young people and adults. Clinical Guideline 150. London
Cousins S, Ridsdale L, Goldstein L et al (2015) A pilot study of cognitive behavioural therapy and relaxation for migraine headache: a randomised controlled trial. J Neurol 262:2764–2772. doi:10.1007/s00415-015-7916-z
Goslin R, Gray RN, McCrory DC et al (1999) Behavioral and physical treatments for migraine headache. Tech. Rev. No. 2.2:
Barnes P, James EK (2009) Migraine headache in children. BMJ Clin Evid 2009:0318
Damen L, Bruijn J, Koes BW et al (2006) Prophylactic treatment of migraine in children. Part 1. A systematic review of non-pharmacological trials. Cephalalgia 26:373–383. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2982.2005.01046.x
Nestoriuc Y, Martin A, Rief W, Andrasik F (2008) Biofeedback treatment for headache disorders: a comprehensive efficacy review. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 33:125–140. doi:10.1007/s10484-008-9060-3
Yates SL, Morley S, Eccleston C, de C Williams AC (2005) A scale for rating the quality of psychological trials for pain. Pain 117:314–325. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2005.06.018
Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC et al (2008) Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther 88:156–175. doi:10.2522/ptj.20070147
Eccleston C, Palermo TM, Fisher E, Law E (2012) Psychological interventions for parents of children and adolescents with chronic illness. Cochrane Database Syst, Rev
Thorn BE, Pence LB, Ward LC et al (2007) A randomized clinical trial of targeted cognitive behavioral treatment to reduce catastrophizing in chronic headache sufferers. J Pain 8:938–949. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2007.06.010
Devineni T, Blanchard EB (2005) A randomized controlled trial of an internet-based treatment for chronic headache. Behav Res Ther 43:277–292. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2004.01.008
D’Souza PJ, Lumley MA, Kraft CA, Dooley JA (2008) Relaxation training and written emotional disclosure for tension or migraine headaches: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Behav Med 36:21–32. doi:10.1007/s12160-008-9046-7
Kraft CA, Lumley MA, D’Souza PJ, Dooley JA (2008) Emotional approach coping and self-efficacy moderate the effects of written emotional disclosure and relaxation training for people with migraine headaches. Br J Health Psychol 13:67–71. doi:10.1348/135910707X251144
Dittrich SM, Günther V, Franz G et al (2008) Aerobic exercise with relaxation: influence on pain and psychological well-being in female migraine patients. Clin J Sport Med 18:363–365. doi:10.1097/JSM.0b013e31817efac9
Varkey E, Cider A, Carlsson J, Linde M (2011) Exercise as migraine prophylaxis: a randomized study using relaxation and topiramate as controls. Cephalalgia 31:1428–1438. doi:10.1177/0333102411419681
Vasudeva S, Claggett AL, Tietjen GE, McGrady AV (2003) Biofeedback-assisted relaxation in migraine headache: relationship to cerebral blood flow velocity in the middle cerebral artery. Headache 43:245–250
Kang E-H, Park J-E, Chung C-S, Yu B-H (2009) Effect of biofeedback-assisted autogenic training on headache activity and mood states in Korean female migraine patients. J Korean Med Sci 24:936–940. doi:10.3346/jkms.2009.24.5.936
Lemstra M, Stewart B, Olszynski WP (2002) Effectiveness of multidisciplinary intervention in the treatment of migraine: a randomized clinical trial. Headache J Head Face Pain 42:845–855
Andersson G, Lundström P, Ström L (2003) Internet-based treatment of headache: does telephone contact add anything? Headache 43:353–361. doi:10.1046/j.1526-4610.2003.03070.x
Mérelle SYM, Sorbi MJ, van Doornen LJP, Passchier J (2008) Migraine patients as trainers of their fellow patients in non-pharmacological preventive attack management: short-term effects of a randomized controlled trial. Cephalalgia 28:127–138. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01472.x
Mérelle SYM, Sorbi MJ, van Doornen LJP, Passchier J (2008) Lay trainers with migraine for a home-based behavioral training: a 6-month follow-up study. Headache 48:1311–1325. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.01043.x
Fritsche G, Frettlöh J, Hüppe M et al (2010) Prevention of medication overuse in patients with migraine. Pain 151:404–413. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.07.032
Hedborg K, Muhr C (2011) Multimodal behavioral treatment of migraine: an Internet-administered, randomized, controlled trial. Ups J Med Sci 116:169–186. doi:10.3109/03009734.2011.575963
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. doi:10.1177/0333102412437386
Bromberg J, Wood ME, Black RA et al (2012) A randomized trial of a web-based intervention to improve migraine self management and coping. Headache 52:244–261
Kaushik R, Kaushik RM, Mahajan SK, Rajesh V (2005) Biofeedback assisted diaphragmatic breathing and systematic relaxation versus propranolol in long term prophylaxis of migraine. Complement Ther Med 13:165–174. doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2005.04.004
Mullally WJ, Hall K, Goldstein R (2009) Efficacy of biofeedback in the treatment of migraine and tension type headaches. Pain Phys 12:1005–1011
Martin PR, Forsyth MR, Reece J (2007) Cognitive-behavioral therapy versus temporal pulse amplitude biofeedback training for recurrent headache. Behav Ther 38:350–363. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2006.10.004
Holroyd KA, Cottrell CK, O’Donnell FJ et al (2010) Effect of preventive (beta blocker) treatment, behavioural migraine management, or their combination on outcomes of optimised acute treatment in frequent migraine: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 341:c4871. doi:10.1136/bmj.c4871
Seng EK, Holroyd KA (2010) Dynamics of changes in self-efficacy and locus of control expectancies in the behavioral and drug treatment of severe migraine. Ann Behav Med 40:235–247. doi:10.1007/s12160-010-9223-3
Seng EK, Holroyd KA (2012) Psychiatric comorbidity and response to preventative therapy in the treatment of severe migraine trial. Cephalalgia 32:390–400
Calhoun AH, Ford S (2007) Behavioral sleep modification may revert transformed migraine to episodic migraine. Headache 47:1178–1183. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.00780.x
Wachholtz AB, Pargament KI (2008) Migraines and meditation: does spirituality matter? J Behav Med 31:351–366. doi:10.1007/s10865-008-9159-2
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:S110–S132
Tfelt-Hansen P, Pascual J, Ramadan N et al (2011) Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: third edition. A guide for investigators. Cephalalgia 32:6–38
Schafer AM, Rains JC, Penzien DB et al (2011) Direct costs of preventive headache treatments: comparison of behavioral and pharmacologic approaches. Headache 51:985–991. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2011.01905.x
Morgan M, Cousins S, Middleton L et al (2016) Patients’ experiences of a behavioural intervention for migraine headache: a qualitative study. J Headache Pain 17:16. doi:10.1186/s10194-016-0601-5
Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S et al (2008) Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 337:a1655. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1655
Richardson GM, McGrath PJ (1989) Cognitive-behavioral therapy for migraine headaches: a minimal-therapist-contact approach versus a clinic-based approach. Headache 29:352–357
Rains JC, Penzien DB, McCrory DC, Gray RN (2005) Behavioral headache treatment: history, review of the empirical literature, and methodological critique. Headache 45(Suppl 2):S92–S109. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.4502003.x
Penzien DB, Johnson C, Seville J, Rubman S (1994) Interrelationships among daily and global self-report measures of headache. Headache Q 5:27–33
This work was part supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) programme. SC received salary support from NIHR. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessary those of the NIHR. Leone Ridsdale was chief investigator, taking overall clinical and research responsibility.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Sullivan, A., Cousins, S. & Ridsdale, L. Psychological interventions for migraine: a systematic review. J Neurol 263, 2369–2377 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-016-8126-z
- Systematic review
- Cognitive behavioural therapy