Introduction: Patients with migraine have varying medical care needs. To effectively stratify patients to appropriate care, physicians should consider the frequency and intensity of attacks, and their overall impact on ability to function. The Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) measures headache-related disability. The MIDAS Perceptions Study investigated whether MIDAS scores reflect headache severity and the need for medical care, and assessed whether the MIDAS questionnaire is meaningful and relevant to patients, and easy to use.
Design: The Perceptions Study was conducted as a follow-up to a baseline telephone interview. Upon completion of the baseline survey, 471 individuals were invited to participate in the Perceptions Study and 420 participated: 168 patients with migraine headaches and 253 with non-migraine headaches. Patients with migraine or non-migraine headaches completed the MIDAS questionnaire and the Center of Epidemiologic Studies of Depression (CES-D) questionnaire, and were then interviewed by telephone within 48 hours of receiving the questionnaires.
Results: Headache frequency and pain intensity increased significantly with increasing MIDAS grade (p < 0.0001). A pattern of decreasing quality-of-life scores on the physical and mental subscales of the Short Form-12 was also seen with increasing MIDAS grade. Scores on the CES-D scale increased significantly with increasing MIDAS grade (p < 0.0001), indicating a greater likelihood of depression and more severe depression with higher grades. There were significant associations between increasing MIDAS grade and an increasing proportion of individuals who had consulted a doctor within the past year, lower use of over-the-counter medication, and greater use of prescription medications (p < 0.0001 for all three variables). Satisfaction with current therapy decreased significantly with increasing MIDAS grade, mirroring the frequency with which individuals achieved complete relief from headache. The MIDAS questionnaire was rated as easy to use by the vast majority of respondents, and ratings of its perceived value increased significantly as MIDAS grade increased.
Conclusions: A low MIDAS score generally seems to indicate a low need for care, while individuals in MIDAS grades III and IV appear to have significant unmet medical care needs. The MIDAS questionnaire had increasingly perceived relevance as MIDAS grade increased, helped the majority of those in MIDAS grades III and IV to understand the impact of their headaches, and encouraged those with the greatest disability to seek medical care. The MIDAS questionnaire may facilitate communication between doctors and patients, and help physicians to identify those receiving inadequate medical care.
Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Celentano DD, et al. Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States: relation to age, income, race, and other sociodemographic factors. JAMA 1992; 267: 64–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipton RB, Stewart WF, von Korff M. Burden of migraine: societal costs and therapeutic opportunities. Neurology 1997; 48Suppl. 3: S4–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipton RB, Stewart WF. Migraine in the United States. A review of epidemiology and health care use. Neurology 1993; 43Suppl. 3: S6–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
Henry P, Michel P, Brochet B, et al. A nationwide survey of migraine in France: prevalence and clinical features in adults. Cephalalgia 1992; 12: 229–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryse-Phillips W, Findlay H, Tugwell P, et al. A Canadian population survey on the clinical, epidemiologic and societal impact of migraine and tension-type headache. Can J Neurol Sci 1992; 19: 333–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
Dählof CG, Solomon GD. The burden of migraine to the individual sufferer: a review. Eur J Neurol 1998; 5: 525–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipton RB, Hamelsky SW, Kolodner KB, et al. Migraine, quality of life, and depression: a population-based case-control study. Neurology 2000; 55: 629–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terwindt GM, Ferrari MD, Tijhuis M, et al. The impact of migraine on quality of life in the general population. The GEM study. Neurology 2000; 55: 624–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breslau N, Merikangas K, Bowden CL. Comorbidity of migraine and major effective disorders. Neurology 1994; 44Suppl. 7: S17–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
Silberstein SD, Rosenberg J. Multispecialty consensus on diagnosis and treatment of headache [abstract]. Neurology 2000; 54: 1553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater ND, Lipton RB, Stewart WF, et al. Doctor-patient communication about migraine disability [abstract]. Neurology 1999; 52Suppl. 2: A470Google Scholar
Lipton RB, Stewart WF, MacGregor A, et al. Communication of migraine disability between physicians and patients [abstract]. Cephalalgia 1999; 19: 337Google Scholar
Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner K, et al. Reliability of the migraine disability assessment score in a population-based sample of headache sufferers. Cephalalgia 1999; 19: 107–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Whyte J, et al. An international study to assess reliability of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score. Neurology 1999; 53: 988–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner KB, et al. Validity of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score in comparison to a diary-based measure in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain 2000; 88: 41–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Dowson AJ, et al. Development and testing of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire to assess headache-related disability. Neurology 2001; 56(6 Suppl. 1): S20–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Stone AM, et al. Stratified care vs step care strategies for migraine. The disability in Strategies of Care (DISC) Study: A randomised trial. JAMA 2000; 284: 2599–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I Conceptual Framework and Item Selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar