Fred D Sheftell1. 1. New England Centre for Headache, Stamford, CT 06902, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Review of problems arising from communication difficulties in headache practice. METHODS: Literature review and assessment of practice experience. BACKGROUND: Advances in understanding of the pathophysiology of migraine and the availability of specific acute therapies have given migraine sufferers access to effective treatment and physicians a wide array of therapeutic alternatives. There remains uncertainty about the best drug group for any given patient and about which triptan to use when and in which formulation; about patient preference and satisfaction; about interpretations of pivotal trials and meta-analyses; and about the relevance of large group efficacy and safety data to the individual patient. The clinician may be daunted by the array of triptans with choices of dosage and multiple formulations and will likely learn how to use two or three of them at most, as in depression and hypertension. In the context of the wide array of choices and the complexities of assessing responses and patient preferences, this paper attempts to provide a framework for incorporating the evidence with clinical experience and for communicating these concepts effectively. BENEFITS, HARMS AND COSTS: None. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Even when an appropriate recommendation is determined, therapy may fail unless the doctor patient relationship permits open communication, time for questions and answers and time for instruction on how to use a given medication, and its probable effects. Translating evidence into patient-friendly language is a skill as necessary as that of making the clinical decision itself. Tools are available that can support this effort and aid in creating an environment of "partnership".
OBJECTIVE: Review of problems arising from communication difficulties in headache practice. METHODS: Literature review and assessment of practice experience. BACKGROUND: Advances in understanding of the pathophysiology of migraine and the availability of specific acute therapies have given migraine sufferers access to effective treatment and physicians a wide array of therapeutic alternatives. There remains uncertainty about the best drug group for any given patient and about which triptan to use when and in which formulation; about patient preference and satisfaction; about interpretations of pivotal trials and meta-analyses; and about the relevance of large group efficacy and safety data to the individual patient. The clinician may be daunted by the array of triptans with choices of dosage and multiple formulations and will likely learn how to use two or three of them at most, as in depression and hypertension. In the context of the wide array of choices and the complexities of assessing responses and patient preferences, this paper attempts to provide a framework for incorporating the evidence with clinical experience and for communicating these concepts effectively. BENEFITS, HARMS AND COSTS: None. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Even when an appropriate recommendation is determined, therapy may fail unless the doctor patient relationship permits open communication, time for questions and answers and time for instruction on how to use a given medication, and its probable effects. Translating evidence into patient-friendly language is a skill as necessary as that of making the clinical decision itself. Tools are available that can support this effort and aid in creating an environment of "partnership".
Authors: Richard B Lipton; Steven R Hahn; Roger K Cady; Jan Lewis Brandes; Suzanne E Simons; Philip A Bain; Meaghan R Nelson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 5.128