Singh, Rashmi B. Halker

Background Matters of workplace harassment are an important issue. This issue needs to be recognized and studied to prevent occurrences. These important sensitive areas of effective workplace management are increasingly gaining more interest. We aimed to identify the prevalence of workplace sexual, verbal and physical harassment among headache professionals. Methods We adopted a cross‑sectional exploratory survey approach with quantitative design. The survey was distributed electronically among headache healthcare and research professionals globally through the International Headache Society (IHS). Results Data were obtained from 579 respondents (55.3%; 320/579 women). A large percentage of respondents (46.6%; 270/579) had experienced harassment; specifically, 16.1% (93/578) reported sexual harassment, 40.4% (234/579) verbal harassment and 5.5% (32/579) physical harassment. Women were almost seven times more likely to experience sexual harassment compared to men (odds ratio = 6.8; 95% confidence interval = 3.5–13.2). Although women did also more frequently report other types of harassment, this was not statistically significant (odds ratio = 1.4; 95% confidence interval = 1.0–2.0). Conclusions Lifetime exposure to workplace harassment is prevalent among headache professionals, especially in women. The present study uncovers a widespread issue and calls for strategies to be implemented for building a healthy and safe workplace environment.

Background Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. Methods In this 52-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, adults with 4–14 monthly migraine days received atogepant 60 mg once-daily or standard care. Health outcome endpoints collected from participants randomized to atogepant included change from baseline in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ v2.1) Role Function-Restrictive (RFR), Role Function-Preventive (RFP) and Emotional Function (EF) domain scores, change in Activity Impairment in Migraine-Diary (AIM-D) Performance of Daily Activities (PDA) and Physical Impairment (PI) domain scores, and change in Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) total score. Results Of 744 randomized participants, 521 received atogepant 60 mg in the modified intent-to-treat population. Least-squares mean changes from baseline in MSQ-RFR score were 30.02 (95% confidence interval = 28.16–31.87) at week 12 and 34.70 (95% confidence interval = 32.74–36.66) at week 52. Improvements were also observed in other MSQ domains, AIM-D PDA, PI and HIT-6 total scores. A ≥5-point improvement from baseline in HIT-6 score was observed in 59.9% of participants at week 4 and 80.8% of participants at week 52. Conclusion Over 52 weeks, atogepant 60 mg once-daily was associated with sustained improvements in quality of life and reductions in activity impairment and headache impact. Trial Registration: NCT03700320

Abstract Objectives We aimed to identify migraine treatment features preferred by patients and treatment outcomes most valued by patients. Background The values and preferences of people living with migraine are critical for both the choice of acute therapy and management approach of migraine. Methods We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis. Two reviewers independently selected studies, appraised methodological quality, and undertook a framework synthesis. We developed summary of findings tables following the approach of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research to assess confidence in the findings. Results Of 1691 candidate references, we included 19 studies (21 publications) involving 459 patients. The studies mostly recruited White women from North America (11 studies) and Europe (8 studies). We identified eight themes encompassing features preferred by patients in a migraine treatment process. Themes described a treatment process that included shared decision‐making, a tailored approach, trust in health‐care professionals, sharing of knowledge and diversity of treatment options, a holistic approach that does not just address the headache, ease of communication especially for complex treatments, a non‐undermining approach, and reciprocity with mutual respect between patient and provider. In terms of the treatment itself, seven themes emerged including patients’ preferences for nonpharmacologic treatment, high effectiveness, rapidity of action, long‐lasting effect, lower cost and more accessibility, self‐management/self‐delivery option that increases autonomy, and a mixed preference for abortive versus prophylactic treatments. The treatment outcomes that have high value to patients included maintaining or improving function; avoiding side effects, potential for addiction to medications, and pain reoccurrence; and avoiding non‐headache symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light or sounds. Conclusion Patient values and preferences were individually constructed, varied widely, and could be at odds with conventional medical perspectives and evidence of treatment effects. Considering the availability of numerous treatments for acute migraine, it is necessary that decision‐making incorporates patient values and preferences identified in qualitative research. The findings of this qualitative synthesis can be used to facilitate an individually tailored approach, strengthen the patient–health‐care system relationship, and guide choices and decisions in the context of a clinical encounter or a clinical practice guideline.