Search

Objectives: Migraine affects more than 80 million people in Western Europe. The present study evaluated disability and health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) who had failed multiple preventive treatments. Materials and Methods: This study was an analysis of cross‐sectional, web‐based survey data from adult patients with migraine (EM and CM) from the United Kingdom, France, and Spain who had self‐reported failure of two or more preventive treatments. Patient characteristics and patient‐reported HRQoL, migraine‐related disability, healthcare resource use (HCRU), and burden of migraine were evaluated by classification (CM and EM) and country (EM only). Results: In this sample of 316 patients (United Kingdom, n = 106; Spain, n = 105; France, n = 105), 76 (24.1%) patients had CM, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 39.5 (12.3) years, and 164 (51.9%) patients were female. Those patients with CM reported greater migraine‐related disability based on Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores versus those with EM (mean [SD]: 43.8 [44.7] vs. 23.2 [28.3]), as well as greater pain‐related impact on daily activities and higher HCRU. Among patients with EM, MIDAS scores indicated disability was severe in Spain (mean [SD]: 31.6 [31.1]) and France (24.3 [31.1]) and moderate in the United Kingdom (13.8 [17.9]), while HRQoL was similar across countries. Regarding the burden of EM, higher levels of pain and symptom‐related interference with many aspects of life, including occupational functioning, were reported in the United Kingdom and Spain versus France. Conclusions: Migraine is associated with substantial disability and decreased HRQoL among patients who have failed previous preventive therapies. Although migraine burden varied by country, the results suggest high unmet needs in all countries. Appropriate treatment could reduce migraine‐related burden and HCRU among patients with difficult‐to‐treat migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Both low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are major occupational health problems. In the workplace, participatory ergonomics (PE) is frequently used on musculoskeletal disorders. However, evidence on the effectiveness of PE to prevent LBP and NP obtained from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is scarce. This study evaluates the process of the Stay@Work participatory ergonomics programme, including the perceived implementation of the prioritised ergonomic measures. Methods This cluster-RCT was conducted at the departments of four Dutch companies (a railway transportation company, an airline company, a steel company, and a university including its university medical hospital). Directly after the randomisation outcome, intervention departments formed a working group that followed the steps of PE during a six-hour working group meeting. Guided by an ergonomist, working groups identified and prioritised risk factors for LBP and NP, and composed and prioritised ergonomic measures. Within three months after the meeting, working groups had to implement the prioritised ergonomic measures at their department. Data on various process components (recruitment, reach, fidelity, satisfaction, and implementation components, i.e., dose delivered and dose received) were collected and analysed on two levels: department (i.e., working group members from intervention departments) and participant (i.e., workers from intervention departments). Results A total of 19 intervention departments (n = 10 with mental workloads, n = 1 with a light physical workload, n = 4 departments with physical and mental workloads, and n = 4 with heavy physical workloads) were recruited for participation, and the reach among working group members who participated was high (87%). Fidelity and satisfaction towards the PE programme rated by the working group members was good (7.3 or higher). The same was found for the Stay@Work ergocoach training (7.5 or higher). In total, 66 ergonomic measures were prioritised by the working groups. Altogether, 34% of all prioritised ergonomic measures were perceived as implemented (dose delivered), while the workers at the intervention departments perceived 26% as implemented (dose received). Conclusions PE can be a successful method to develop and to prioritise ergonomic measures to prevent LBP and NP. Despite the positive rating of the PE programme the implementation of the prioritised ergonomic measures was lower than expected. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27472278

Abstract Background Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are common among workers. Participatory Ergonomics (PE) is used as an implementation strategy to prevent these symptoms. By following the steps of PE, working groups composed and prioritised ergonomic measures, and developed an implementation plan. Working group members were responsible to implement the ergonomic measures in their departments. Little is known about factors that hamper (barriers) or enhance (facilitators) the implementation of ergonomic measures. This study aimed to identify and understand the possible barriers and facilitators that were perceived during implementation. Methods This study is embedded in a cluster randomised controlled trial that investigated the effectiveness of PE to prevent LBP and NP among workers. For the purpose of the current study, questionnaires were sent to 81 working group members. Their answers were used to make a first inventory of possible barriers and facilitators to implementation. Based on the questionnaire information, 15 semi-structured interviews were held to explore the barriers and facilitators in more detail. All interviews were audio taped, transcribed verbatim, and analysed according to a systematic approach. Results All possible barriers and facilitators were obtained from questionnaire data, indicating that the semi-structured interviews did not yield information about new factors. Various barriers and facilitators were experienced. The presence of implementation plans for ergonomic measures that were already approved by the management facilitated implementation before the working group meeting. In these cases, PE served as a strategy to improve the implementation of the approved measures. Furthermore, the findings showed that the composition of a working group (i.e., including decision makers and a worker who led the implementation process) was important. Moreover, stakeholder involvement and collaboration were reported to considerably improve implementation. Conclusions This study showed that the working group as well as stakeholder involvement and collaboration were important facilitating factors. Moreover, PE was used as a strategy to improve the implementation of existing ergonomic measures. The results can be used to improve PE programmes, and thereby may contribute to the prevention of LBP and NP. Trial registration number ISRCTN27472278

Abstract Background Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are a major public health problem with considerable costs for individuals, companies and society. Therefore, prevention is imperative. The Stay@Work study investigates the (cost-)effectiveness of Participatory Ergonomics (PE) to prevent LBP and NP among workers. Methods In a randomised controlled trial (RCT), a total of 5,759 workers working at 36 departments of four companies is expected to participate in the study at baseline. The departments consisting of about 150 workers are pre-stratified and randomised. The control departments receive usual practice and the intervention departments receive PE. Within each intervention department a working group is formed including eight workers, a representative of the management, and an occupational health and safety coordinator. During a one day meeting, the working group follows the steps of PE in which the most important risk factors for LBP and NP, and the most adequate ergonomic measures are identified on the basis of group consensus. The implementation of ergonomic measures at the department is performed by the working group. To improve the implementation process, so-called 'ergocoaches' are trained. The primary outcome measure is an episode of LBP and NP. Secondary outcome measures are actual use of ergonomic measures, physical workload, psychosocial workload, intensity of pain, general health status, sick leave, and work productivity. The cost-effectiveness analysis is performed from the societal and company perspective. Outcome measures are assessed using questionnaires at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Data on the primary outcome as well as on intensity of pain, sick leave, work productivity, and health care costs are collected every 3 months. Discussion Prevention of LBP and NP is beneficial for workers, employers, and society. If the intervention is proven (cost-)effective, the intervention can have a major impact on LBP and NP prevention and, thereby, on work disability prevention. Results are expected in 2010. Trial registration ISRCTN27472278

Aim: To evaluate adherence, healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs for glatiramer acetate (GA; injectable), dimethyl fumarate (oral) and teriflunomide (oral) in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Patients & methods: Retrospective analyses of a claims database. Results: Teriflunomide patients were older with more co-morbidities and fewer relapses versus GA and dimethyl fumarate. GA patients were mostly disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)-treatment naive. Treatment adherence was 61-70%. All DMTs reduced HRU versus pre-index. Costs were comparable across cohorts. High adherence reduced hospitalizations and several costs versus low adherers. Conclusion: Adherence rates were high and comparable with all DMTs. Similar (and high) reductions in HRU and costs occurred with all DMTs. High adherence improved economic outcomes versus low adherence. Thus, investing in adherence improvement is beneficial to improve outcomes in relapsing multiple sclerosis.