Validation of the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6™) across episodic and chronic migraine

Min Yang, Regina Rendas-Baum, Sepideh F Varon, Mark Kosinski, Min Yang, Regina Rendas-Baum, Sepideh F Varon, Mark Kosinski

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess psychometric properties of the six-item Headache Impact Text (HIT-6™) across episodic and chronic migraine.

Methods: Using a migraine screener and number of headache days per month (HDPM), participants from the National Survey of Headache Impact (NSHI) study and the HIT-6 validation study (HIT6-V) were selected for this study. Eligible participants were categorized into three groups: chronic migraine (CM: ≥ 15 HDPM); episodic migraine (EM: < 15 HDPM); non-migraine headaches. Reliability and validity of the HIT-6 were evaluated.

Results: A total of 2,049 survey participants met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for this study. Participants were identified as 6.4% CM; 42.1% EM; 51.5% non-migraine, with respective mean HIT-6 scores: 62.5 ± 7.8; 60.2 ± 6.8; and 49.1 ± 8.7. High reliability was demonstrated with internal consistency (time1/time2) of 0.83/0.87 in NSHI, and 0.82/0.92 in HIT6-V. Intra-class correlation for test-retest reliability was very good at 0.77. HIT-6 scores correlated significantly (p < .0001) with total Migraine Disability Assessment Scale scores (r = 0.56), headache pain severity (r = 0.46), and HDPM (r = 0.29). Discriminant validity analysis showed significantly different HIT-6 scores (F = 488.02, p < .0001) across the groups.

Conclusion: Results from these analyses confirm that the HIT-6 is a reliable and valid tool for discriminating headache impact across episodic and chronic migraine.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/3057423/bin/10.1177_0333102410379890-fig1.jpg
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/3057423/bin/10.1177_0333102410379890-fig2.jpg

References

    1. Rasmussen BK. Epidemiology of migraine. Biomed Pharmacother 1995; 49: 452–455
    1. Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Diamond M, Freitag F, Reed ML, Stewart WF. Migraine prevalence, disease burden, and the need for preventive therapy. Neurology 2007; 68: 343–349
    1. Bigal ME, Rapoport AM, Lipton RB, Tepper SJ, Sheftell FD. Assessment of migraine disability using the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire: a comparison of chronic migraine with episodic migraine. Headache 2003; 43: 336–342
    1. Lipton RB, Liberman JN, Kolodner KB, Bigal ME, Dowson A, Stewart WF. Migraine headache disability and health-related quality-of-life: a population-based case-control study from England. Cephalalgia 2003; 23: 441–450
    1. Monzon MJ, Lainez MJ. Quality of life in migraine and chronic daily headache patients. Cephalalgia 1998; 18: 638–643
    1. Bigal ME, Serrano D, Reed M, Lipton RB. Chronic migraine in the population: burden, diagnosis, and satisfaction with treatment. Neurology 2008; 71: 559–566
    1. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Simon D. Work-related disability: results from the American migraine study. Cephalalgia 1996; 16: 231–238
    1. Bigal ME, Lipton RB. Clinical course in migraine: conceptualizing migraine transformation. Neurology 2008; 71: 848–855
    1. Bigal ME, Lipton RB. Concepts and mechanisms of migraine chronification. Headache 2008; 48: 7–15
    1. Lipton RB, Bigal ME. Looking to the future: research designs for study of headache disease progression. Headache 2008; 48: 58–66
    1. Ferrari A, Leone S, Vergoni AV, et al. Similarities and differences between chronic migraine and episodic migraine. Headache 2007; 47: 65–72
    1. Lipton RB, Diamond S, Reed M, Diamond ML, Stewart WF. Migraine diagnosis and treatment: results from the American Migraine Study II. Headache 2001; 41: 638–645
    1. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society International classification of headache disorders, 2nd edn. Cephalalgia 2004; 24: 9–160
    1. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society New appendix criteria open for a broader concept of chronic migraine. Cephalalgia 2006; 26: 742–746
    1. Tfelt-Hansen P, Block G, Dahlof C, et al. Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine, 2nd edn. Cephalalgia 2000; 20: 765–786
    1. Andrasik F, Lipchik GL, McCrory DC, Wittrock DA. Outcome measurement in behavioral headache research: headache parameters and psychosocial outcomes. Headache 2005; 45: 429–437
    1. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, et al. Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2003; 106: 337–345
    1. Silberstein S, Tfelt-Hansen P, Dodick DW, et al. Guidelines for controlled trials of prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine in adults. Cephalalgia 2008; 28: 484–495
    1. Ware JE, Jr, Bjorner JB, Kosinski M. Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: a brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Med Care 2000; 38: 73–82
    1. Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, Bjorner JB, et al. A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: the HIT-6. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 963–974
    1. Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE., Jr Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HIT™) to the metric of traditional headache scales. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 981–1002
    1. De Diego EV, Lanteri-Minet M. Recognition and management of migraine in primary care: influence of functional impact measured by the headache impact test (HIT). Cephalalgia 2005; 25: 184–190
    1. Diener H, Bussone G, Van Oene J, Schwalen S, Goadsby PJ. Topiramate reduces headache days in chronic migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Cephalalgia 2007; 27: 814–823
    1. Jelinski S, Becker W, Christie S, et al. Clinical features and pharmacological treatment of migraine patients referred to headache specialists in Canada. Can J Neurol Sci 2006; 33: 228–234
    1. Nachit-Ouinekh F, Dartigues JF, Henry P, et al. Use of the headache impact test (HIT-6) in general practice: relationship with quality of life and severity. Eur J Neurol 2005; 12: 189–193
    1. El HA, Doble A, Gaudin AF. [Tools for assessing patient perception of the impact of migraine]. [French.]. CNS Drugs 2006; 20(1): 24–36
    1. Cady R, Schreiber C. Botulinum toxin type A as migraine preventive treatment in patients previously failing oral prophylactic treatment due to compliance issues. Headache 2008; 48: 900–913
    1. Lanteri-Minet M, Massiou H, Nachit-Ouinekh F, Pradalier A, Radat F. The GRIM2005 study of migraine consultation in France I. Determinants of consultation for migraine headache in France. Cephalalgia 2007; 27: 1386–1397
    1. Bayliss M, Batenhorst A. The HIT-6™: a user's guide. USA: QualityMetric, Inc: Lincoln, RI, 2002
    1. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Dowson AJ, Sawyer J. Development and testing of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire to assess headache-related disability. Neurology 2001; 56: 20–28
    1. Ware Jr JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE, Gandek B. How to score and interpret single-item health status measures: a manual for users of the SF-8 Health Survey. (With a supplement on the SF-6 Health Survey). QualityMetric, Inc: Lincoln, RI, USA, 2001.
    1. Lipton RB, Dodick D, Sadovsky R, et al. A self-administered screener for migraine in primary care: The ID Migraine validation study. Neurology 2003; 61: 375–382
    1. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory, 3rd edn New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994
    1. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420–428
    1. Kerlinger F. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973
    1. Brandt R. Assessing the proportionality on the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics 1990; 46: 1171–1178
    1. Munakata J, Hazard E, Serrano D, et al. Economic burden of transformed migraine: results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. Headache 2009; 49: 498–508
    1. Kawata AK, Coeytaux RR, Devellis RF, Finkel AG, Mann JD, Kahn K. Psychometric properties of the HIT-6 among patients in a headache-specialty practice. Headache 2005; 45: 638–643
    1. Coeytaux RR, Kaufman JS, Chao R, Mann JD, Devellis RF. Four methods of estimating the minimal important difference score were compared to establish a clinically significant change in Headache Impact Test. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 374–380
    1. Sauro KM, Rose MS, Becker WJ, et al. HIT-6 and MIDAS as measures of headache disability in a headache referral population. Headache 2010; 50: 383–395
    1. Shin HE, Park JW, Kim YI, Lee KS. Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) Scores for Migraine Patients: Their Relation to Disability as Measured from a Headache Diary. J Clin Neurol 2008; 4: 158–163
    1. Magnusson JE, Becker WJ. Migraine frequency and intensity: relationship with disability and psychological factors. Headache 2003; 43: 1049–1059
    1. Jacobson GP, Ramadan NM, Aggarwal SK, Newman CW. The Henry Ford Hospital Headache Disability Inventory (HDI) 2. Neurology 1994; 44: 837–842
    1. Magnoux E, Freeman MA, Zlotnik G. MIDAS and HIT-6 French translation: reliability and correlation between tests. Cephalalgia 2008; 28: 26–34
    1. Haut SR, Bigal ME, Lipton RB. Chronic disorders with episodic manifestations: focus on epilepsy and migraine. Lancet Neurol 2006; 5: 148–157

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren