J Clin Neurol.  2008 Dec;4(4):158-163. 10.3988/jcn.2008.4.4.158.

Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) Scores for Migraine Patients: Their Relation to Disability as Measured from a Headache Diary

• Shin HE
• Park JW
• Kim YI
• Lee KS

• KMID: 2287669
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3988/jcn.2008.4.4.158

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Complete information on migraine-related disabilities facilitate the making of appropriate treatment decisions. Although the accessibility and ease of use of the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) make it a very promising instrument, there are few data available for comparing HIT-6 scores with the actual amount of disability. METHODS: To determine whether the disability measured using the HIT-6 questionnaire realistically reflects the amount of disability as extracted from a headache diary, which would help when deciding a management plan, 130 patients with migraine without aura were instructed to complete a headache diary on the days on which headache occurred. Each diary booklet also contained questions on the resulting disability, and comprised five items originating from the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale. After submitting their diaries, the participants completed the HIT-6 for the same time period. RESULTS: Disability as recorded in diaries was present for a mean of 2.7 days per month, and its duration differed significantly with HIT-6 score: 0.9, 2.6, and 4.6 days per month for littleto-no impact, moderate impact, and severe impact, respectively. The summed disability score from diaries was also related to the HIT-6 score. Headache frequency was the only headache characteristic that contributed significantly to the HIT-6 score. CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates that the HIT-6 could be useful for assessing headache-related disability in migraine patients, especially given that the questionnaire is both simple and ease of use.

Keyword

migraine; disability; Headache Impact Test-6; Migraine Disability Assessment Scale; diary

MeSH Terms

Headache
Humans
Migraine Disorders
Migraine without Aura
Pamphlets
Surveys and Questionnaires

Reference

1. Terwindt GM, Ferrari MD, Tijhuis M, Groenen SM, Picavet HS, Launer LJ. The impact of migraine on quality of life in the general population: the GEM study. Neurology. 2000. 55:624–629.

2. 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.

3. Holmes WF, MacGregor EA, Dodick D. Migraine-related disability: impact and implications for sufferers' lives and clinical issues. Neurology. 2001. 56:6 Suppl 1. S13–S19.

4. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Simon D, Von Korff M, Liberman J. Reliability of an illness severity measure for headache in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Cephalalgia. 1998. 18:44–51.

5. Jacobson GP, Ramadan NM, Norris L, Newman CW. Headache disability inventory (HDI): short-term test-retest reliability and spouse perceptions. Headache. 1995. 35:534–539.

6. El Hasnaoui A, Vray M, Richard A, Nachit-Ouinekh F, Boureau F. MIGSEV Group. Assessing the severity of migraine: development of the MIGSEV scale. Headache. 2003. 43:628–635.

7. Bayliss MS, Dewey JE, Dunlap I, Batenhorst AS, Cady R, Diamond ML, et al. A study of the feasibility of Internet administration of a computerized health survey: the headache impact test (HIT). Qual Life Res. 2003. 12:953–961.

8. Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, Bjorner JB, Ware JE Jr, Garber WH, Batenhorst A, et al. A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: the HIT-6. Qual Life Res. 2003. 12:963–974.

9. 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. 38:9 Suppl 1. II73–II82.

10. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner KB, Sawyer J, Lee C, Liberman JN. Validity of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score in comparison to a diary-based measure in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain. 2000. 88:41–52.

11. Iigaya M, Sakai F, Kolodner KB, Lipton RB, Stewart WF. Reliability and validity of the Japanese Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire. Headache. 2003. 43:343–352.

12. Ertaş M, Siva A, Dalkara T, Uzuner N, Dora B, Inan L, et al. Validity and reliability of the Turkish Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. Headache. 2004. 44:786–793.

13. D'Amico D, Mosconi P, Genco S, Usai S, Prudenzano AM, Grazzi L, et al. The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire: translation and reliability of the Italian version. Cephalalgia. 2001. 21:947–952.

14. Pryse-Phillips W. Evaluating migraine disability: the headache impact test instrument in context. Can J Neurol Sci. 2002. 29:Suppl 2. S11–S15.

15. 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.

16. Nachit-Ouinekh F, Dartigues JF, Henry P, Becg JP, Chastan G, Lemaire N, 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.

17. Headache Classification Subcommittee of the International Headache Society. The International Classification of Headache Disorders: 2^nd edition. Cephalalgia. 2004. 24:Suppl 1. 9–160.

18. 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.

19. Weber M, Daurès JP, Fabre N, Druais PL, Dardenne J, Slama A, et al. [Influence of general practitioners' personal knowledge on migraine in medical attitudes towards their patients suffering from migraine]. Rev Neurol(Paris). 2002. 158:439–445.

20. Lewis D, Ashwal S, Hershey A, Hirtz D, Yonker M, Silberstein S. American Academy of Neurology Quality Standards Subcommittee. Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society. Practice parameter: pharmacological treatment of migraine headache in children and adolescents: report of the American Academy of Neurology Quality Standards Subcommittee and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society. Neurology. 2004. 63:2215–2224.

21. Members of the task force. Evers S, Afra J, Frese A, Goadsby PJ, Linde M, May A, et al. EFNS guideline on the drug treatment of migraine - report of an EFNS task force. Eur J Neurol. 2006. 13:560–572.

22. Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Stone AM, Láinez MJ, Sawyer JP. Disability in Strategies of Care Study group. Stratified care vs step care strategies for migraine: the Disability in Strategies of Care (DISC) Study: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2000. 284:2599–2605.

23. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Bayliss MS, Batenhorst A, Dahlöf CG, et al. Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Qual Life Res. 2003. 12:935–952.

24. Magnoux E, Freeman MA, Zlotnik G. MIDAS and HIT-6 French translation: reliability and correlation between tests. Cephalalgia. 2008. 28:26–34.

25. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner K. Migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) score: relation to headache frequency, pain intensity, and headache symptoms. Headache. 2003. 43:258–265.

26. Magnusson JE, Becker WJ. Migraine frequency and intensity: relationship with disability and psychological factors. Headache. 2003. 43:1049–1059.

27. Stewart WF, Schechter A, Lipton RB. Migraine heterogeneity. Disability, pain intensity, and attack frequency and duration. Neurology. 1994. 44:6 Suppl 4. S24–S39.

28. Holroyd KA, Drew JB, Cottrell CK, Romanek KM, Heh V. Impaired functioning and quality of life in severe migraine: the role of catastrophizing and associated symptoms. Cephalalgia. 2007. 27:1156–1165.