We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Self-guided Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy (iCBT) for migraine interventions could improve access to care, but there is poor evidence of their efficacy.
Methods:
A three-arm randomized controlled trial compared: iCBT focused on psychoeducation, self-monitoring and skills training (SPHERE), iCBT focused on identifying and managing personal headache triggers (PRISM) and a waitlist control. The primary treatment outcome was a ≥ 50% reduction in monthly headache days at 4 months post-randomization.
Results:
428 participants were randomized (mean age = 30.1). 240 participants (56.2%) provided outcome data at 4 months. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis with missing data imputed demonstrated that the proportion of responders with a ≥ 50% reduction was similar between combined iCBTs and waitlist (48.5/285, 17% vs. 16.6/143, 11.6%, p = 0.20), but analysis of completers showed both iCBT programs to be superior to the waitlist (24/108, 22.2% vs. 13/113, 11.5%, p = 0.047). ITT analysis with missing data imputed showed no difference between the two iCBTs (SPHERE: 24.8/143, 17.3% vs. PRISM: 23.7/142, 16.7%, p = 0.99). Uptake rates of the iCBTs were high (76.9% and 81.69% logged in at least once into SPHERE and PRISM, respectively), but adherence was low (out of those who logged in at least once, 19.01% [21/110] completed at least 50% modules in SPHERE and 7.76% [9/116] set a goal for trying out a given trigger-specific recommendation in PRISM). Acceptability ratings were intermediate.
Conclusions:
Self-guided iCBTs were not found to be superior in our primary ITT analysis. Low adherence could explain the lack of effects as completer analysis showed effects for both interventions. Enhancement of adherence should be a focus of future research.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.