key: cord-0773953-wrljmc2e authors: Steiner, Timothy J.; Birbeck, Gretchen L.; Jensen, Rigmor H.; Martelletti, Paolo; Stovner, Lars Jacob; Uluduz, Derya; Leonardi, Matilde; Olesen, Jes; Katsarava, Zaza title: The Global Campaign turns 18: a brief review of its activities and achievements date: 2022-04-21 journal: J Headache Pain DOI: 10.1186/s10194-022-01420-0 sha: fe3f8d36d71b24b2d6a3bb6ba0eafd297a37a440 doc_id: 773953 cord_uid: wrljmc2e The Global Campaign against Headache, as a collaborative activity with the World Health Organization (WHO), was formally launched in Copenhagen in March 2004. In the month it turns 18, we review its activities and achievements, from initial determination of its strategic objectives, through partnerships and project management, knowledge acquisition and awareness generation, to evidence-based proposals for change justified by cost-effectiveness analysis. In 1996, two of us (TJS and JO) commenced a dialogue with the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva. Our messages were straightforward: that headache disorders were ubiquitous, prevalent and disabling -and to a very large extent treatable. These were WHO's criteria for priority. There was global persistence of substantial and largely unmitigated headache-attributed burden, with universal barriers to care maintaining wide gaps between need for treatment and its provision. The roots of these healthcare failures were established in educational failures. From poor understanding, headache was accorded little priority despite clear evidence that this was wrong. It was wrong from a public-health perspective, and it was wrong economically in view of the very high financial costs of headache disorders. Educational failures blocked awareness, so that this evidence was unseen, or ignored. According to its mandate to promote health through universal health coverage [1] , we argued, WHO should take action to reduce this burden. Thus, more than 25 years ago, were sown the seeds of the Global Campaign against Headache. They did not instantly spring to life. WHO requested empirical evidence to support these arguments, which took time to muster but was in due course presented in WHO's own Global Burden of Disease study (GBD) 2000. The World Health Report 2001, portraying the estimates of GBD2000 and assimilating all evidence that we could then gather on migraine-attributed burden, ranked migraine among the top 20 causes of disability worldwide [2] . The Global Campaign was the outcome, formally launched in Copenhagen in March 2004 [3, 4] . The way forward was not clear: the evident scale of the problem mandated an effective response, but also stood in the way of any solution. Needs analysis revealed then, as it does now, the potentially daunting demands for headache-related health care of the very large numbers who might benefit from it [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] . The approach required was broad, its distant target ambitious. It called for strategic partners, of whom WHO would be the most important [3, 4, [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] , along with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Stage 1 of the Campaign recognised that the scope and scale of a problem must be clearly known before its remedy could be envisaged. When, early on, all existing data on the burden of headache were collated, Western Europe and North America were far better represented than elsewhere, and migraine far better than other headache disorders [6] . What was then known of headache covered less than half the world's population, among whom only half of the burden attributable to headache was estimated with any reliability. Filling these large knowledge gaps was the first priority (Table 1) , requiring a series of new population-based burden-of-headache studies. Most of these would be in low-and middle-income countries, and promised to be methodologically and financially challenging. Therefore, LTB brought together an international expert consensus group to establish standardised methodology and questionnaire [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] and Mongolia [82, 83] ). Schools-based child and adolescent studies began later, again with development and testing of new methodology [84, 85] . Studies have completed data collection in Austria [86] , Ethiopia [87] , Lithuania [88, 89] and Turkey [90] , and in Benin, Iran, Mongolia, Serbia and Zambia [not yet published]. Others have commenced or are planned in Brazil, Cambodia, Cameroon, Estonia, Georgia, Nepal and Spain, but are interrupted by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. These studies inform local policy as well as global knowledge. To the extent that they have been conducted in low-and middle-income countries, they have enhanced research capacity in these countries [21] as a collateral benefit. Among other such benefits are a broader understanding of the full spectrum of headacheattributed burden, which goes far beyond symptom burden and disability [10-12, 14, 22, 29, 30, 32, 51, 54, 58, 84, 85, 90-94] . Two databases under construction at NTNU are capturing the individual-participant data (ie, primary data) from all LTB population-based studies, with subdatasets describing sampling and other methodology as attributes of the main datasets. Ultimately, following development and imposition of quality controls, these will be available as free goods for academic purposes, as are all Global Campaign products. In its second stage, conducted almost in parallel with the first, the Campaign has used the knowledge it gathered to raise awareness -among people with headache, health-care providers and health-policy makers in particular. Making the case for change through evidencebased argument was the second priority (Table 1) , with the key message that headache was not a health problem only of industrialised high-income countries -an historical misperception. The Global Campaign could not have achieved this objective without its strategic partners. On the one hand, the Atlas of headache disorders and resources in the world, 2011 was published jointly by WHO and LTB, collating data from more than 100 countries [22] . On the other, LTB has collaborated with IHME [95] since 2005, providing expert advice, health-state descriptions (on which disability weights are based [96] ) and epidemiological data to inform all iterations of GBD from GBD2010 onwards [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] . GBD incorporates the findings of all population-based studies contributing to global knowledge, including LTB's (all of these recently reviewed [107] ). Migraine and tension-type headache (TTH) were included in GBD2010. Medication-overuse headache (MOH) entered GBD2013 (as 18 th highest cause of disability), but, from GBD2016 onwards, has been included as a sequela of migraine (73%) or TTH (27%), and its consequences attributed accordingly [103] . Increasingly better informed, GBD has advanced the ranking of headache disorders generally and of migraine in particular among the global causes of disability: the latter from 19 th in GBD2000 [2] to second (first among young women) in GBD2019 [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] . There has been no better means of fostering awareness of headache as a public-health priority. The Atlas, along with its political messages of "worldwide neglect of a major cause of public ill-health and … the inadequacies of responses to it in countries throughout the world" [22], was distributed directly by WHO to the world's Ministries of Health. The highly respected GBD data are a public good, directly shared with WHO and all governments, and available to health-policy makers everywhere [95] . In its third stage, the Campaign has proposed the health-care solution to headache, a template for structured headache services adaptable to local needs and resources (Fig. 1) , and supported it with evidencebased scientific, political and economic arguments [22, [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] . Many issues came up for consideration. How and where should headache services be organised? How and by whom, and with what level of resource allocation, should they be delivered? And what were the reasons for whatever were the answers to these? What features of a headache service contributed to quality? These might include technical success (would it function well at a practical level?), uptake (would it be used?), clinical outcomes (would it make patients better?), user satisfaction (would patients, and health-care providers, be happy with it?), cost-effectiveness (would it be affordable within the health-care or wider societal economies?) and equity (would there be equal access for all with equal need?). Which of these were most important, and from whose perspective? How were they measured? The first and foremost requirement of a putative solution is to dismantle the barriers to care [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] . Structured headache services achieve this to a large extent through their base in accessible primary care (Fig. 1) , where patients generally prefer to receive care [128] . They do not deny the role of specialist care, but this cannot be the focus or principal provider of ubiquitous, efficient, cost-effective and equitable care [134] . Placing the burden of care largely into the hands of non-specialists calls for some additional education [135] [136] [137] , and a range of clinical management supports [138, 139] : diagnostic aids based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders [139] , management principles [139, 140] , and outcome measures to aid initial assessment and follow-up [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] . Public education is required to dismantle other barriers: banishing stigma, and promoting self-efficacy, in which people understand their headache disorders and seek and utilise care appropriately [139, [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] . All of these materials must be translated if they are to succeed transnationally and transculturally, following protocols to ensure conceptual equivalence [139, [152] [153] [154] . The outcome measures created by LTB [144, 145] are already freely available in 13 languages [155] . Quality evaluation of headache services first required an understanding of how "quality" should be defined in this context [156, 157] . Subsequently, field-tested indicators of quality were needed, with methods and instruments to measure quality as defined [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] . This remains work in progress, with bench-marking the next step. Finally, in a world of competing demands and scarce resources, health-policy makers require evidence of the economic value of intervention if they are to be persuaded to invest accordingly. Empirical evidence of this for headache was limited outside the very restricted context of clinical trials, in which gains from use of specific drugs had been small and unconvincing. Efficiency is one key to economic value: poor knowledge and understanding of headache lead to misdiagnosis, mismanagement and poor outcomes, wasting health-care resources while often making the initial problem worse. Through avoidance of this wastage, by education, presently allocated resources can achieve much more than they do [22] . But the major economic opportunity is through reduction, by better care delivered more widely, in the very heavy consequential (lost-productivity) costs of headache [163] [164] [165] [166] . Economic evaluation of structured headache services has used LTB's empirical burden-of-headache data from population-based studies around the world [33-83], but first required development of a new metric (hours lived with disability [HLDs]), applicable to all forms of treatment, care and care-delivery systems as opposed to comparisons of single-modality treatments [167, 168] . By this measure, structured headache services as proposed [128] , properly implemented with educational supports in place, are not merely cost-effective in a range of economies, in terms of health gained per dollar spent [169] , but cost saving at societal level in many [170, 171] . The Global Campaign against Headache is a coherent programme of multiple constituent parts, its path determined by its strategic objectives, its activities guided by its values [4] and its progress towards its objectives dependent on a global network of partners. After 18 years, the once-distant target is now visible on the near horizon, but there is a lot more to be done [172, 173] . The Campaign's aspirational vision, from outset, has been of "a future world in which headache disorders are recognised everywhere as real, disabling, and deserving of medical care. In this world, all who need headache care have access to it, without artificial barriers" [174] . The Global Campaign can inform, motivate and offer the means, but only governments can realise this vision. World Health Organization. What we do Lifting the burden: the global campaign against headache Lifting The Burden: The global campaign to reduce the burden of headache worldwide The global burden of migraine: measuring disability in headache disorders with WHO's Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) The global burden of headache: a documentation of headache prevalence and disability worldwide Steiner TJon behalf of the European Headache Federation and Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign to Reduce the Burden of Headache Worldwide (2008) Proposals for the organisation of headache services in Europe Valade D on behalf of the European Headache Federation and Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache (2011) Recommendations for headache service organisation and delivery in Europe The global burden of headache Societal impact of headache. Burden, costs and response Societal impact of headache. Burden, costs and response Societal impact of headache. Burden, costs and response Societal impact of headache. Burden, costs and response Societal impact of headache. Burden, costs and response Lifting The Burden: WHO's global campaign to reduce the burden of headache worldwide 23:49 its prevalence and impact, and their application in estimating the national burden attributable to headache disorders The Eurolight project: the impact of primary headache disorders in Europe. Description of methods The cost of headache disorders in Europe: the Eurolight project The impact of headache in Europe: principal results of the Eurolight project Impact of headache disorders in Italy and the public-health and policy implications: a population-based study within the Eurolight Project Interictal burden attributable to episodic headache: findings from the Eurolight project Headache, depression and anxiety: associations in the Eurolight project The burden of headache disorders in India: methodology and questionnaire validation for a community-based survey in Karnataka State Prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of primary headache disorders: results of a population-based survey from Bangalore Headache disorders and public ill-health in India: prevalence estimates in Karnataka State The burden attributable to headache disorders in India: estimates from a community-based study in Karnataka State Headache yesterday in Karnataka state, India: prevalence, impact and cost Estimating prevalence and burden of major disorders of the brain in Nepal: cultural, geographic, logistic and philosophical issues of methodology Estimating the prevalence and burden of major disorders of the brain in Nepal: methodology of a nationwide population-based study Reliability and validity of a Nepali-language version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Measuring neuroticism in Nepali: reliability and validity of the neuroticism subscale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire The prevalence of primary headache disorders in Nepal: a nationwide population-based study The burden of headache disorders in Nepal: estimates from a population-based survey Comorbidities of psychiatric and headache disorders in Nepal: implications from a nationwide population-based study Anxiety and depression in Nepal: prevalence, comorbidity and associations Health-care utilization for headache disorders in Nepal: a population-based door-to-door survey Migraine associated with altitude: results from a population-based study in Nepal The prevalence and burden of primary headaches in China: a population-based door-to-door survey Body mass index and migraine: a survey of the Chinese adult population Headache yesterday in China: A new approach to estimating the burden of headache, applied in a general-population survey in China Health-care utilization for primary headache disorders in China: a population-based door-to-door survey Medication-overuse headache in China: Clinical profile, and an evaluation of the ICHD-3 beta diagnostic criteria. Cephalalgia Elevated blood pressure and headache disorders in China -associations, under-treatment and implications for public health Familial occurrence of headache disorders: A populationbased study in mainland China Primary headache disorders among the adult population of Mongolia: prevalences and associations from a populationbased survey The prevalence of headache disorders in children and adolescents in Mongolia: a nationwide schools-based study The global burden of headache in children and adolescents -developing a questionnaire and methodology for a global study Headache in children and adolescents: a broader approach is needed than in adults Prevalence and burden of headache in children and adolescents in Austria -a nationwide study in a representative sample of pupils aged 10-18 years The prevalence of headache disorders in children and adolescents in Ethiopia: a schools-based study The prevalence of headache disorders in children and adolescents in Lithuania: a schools-based study The burden attributable to headache disorders in children and adolescents in Lithuania: estimates from a national schools-based study Undifferentiated headache: broadening the approach to headache in children and adolescents, with supporting evidence from a nationwide school-based cross-sectional survey in Turkey A narrative review on the burden of migraine: when the burden is the impact on people's life Disability and quality of life in headache: where we are now and where we are heading Global burden of headache disorders in children and adolescents A systematic review of the psychosocial difficulties relevant to patients with migraine Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Global burden of disease (GBD) Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators (2016) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders during 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study Global, regional, and national burden of migraine and tension-type headache, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study The burden of headache disorders in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, 1990-2016: findings from the Global Burden of Disease study 2016 Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study Societal impact of headache. Burden, costs and response The global prevalence of headache: An update, with analysis of the influences of methodological factors on prevalence estimates Migraine: The seventh disabler (editorial) Migraine: The seventh disabler (editorial) Migraine: the seventh disabler (editorial) The Global Burden of Disease survey 2010, Lifting The Burden and thinking outside-the-box on headache disorders Headache disorders are third cause of disability worldwide GBD 2015: migraine is the third cause of disability in under 50s Migraine is first cause of disability in under 50s: will health politicians now take notice? (editorial) on behalf of Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache (2020) Migraine remains second among the world's causes of disability, and first among young women: findings from GBD2019 Integrating headache services across the primary/ secondary-care interface Health-care systems for headache: patching the seam between primary and specialist care National and international action plans for improving headache diagnosis National healthcare plans for headache? Will (or can) people pay for headache care in a poor country? The Yekaterinburg headache initiative: an interventional project, within the Global Campaign against Headache, to reduce the burden of headache in Russia Organization of headache services Headache in the world: public health and research priorities Lifting the burden of headache in China: managing migraine in a SMART way Implementation of effective, self-sustaining headache services in the Republic of Georgia: Evaluation of their impact on headache-related disability and quality of life of people with headache Societal impact of headache. Burden, costs and response Valuing headache's solution (editorial) Neglected headache: ignorance, arrogance or insouciance? (editorial) Poor medical care for people with migraine in Europe -evidence from the Eurolight study Societal impact of headache. Burden, costs and response Societal impact of headache. Burden, costs and response Advocacy for patients with headache on behalf of the European Headache Federation and Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache (2019) Headache service quality: the role of specialized headache centres within structured headache services, and suggested standards and criteria as centres of excellence Handbook of headache Structured education can improve primarycare management of headache: the first empirical evidence, from a controlled interventional study Structured education to improve primary-care management of headache: how long do the benefits last? A follow-up observational study Aids for management of common headache disorders in primary care on behalf of the European Headache Federation and Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache (2019) Aids to management of headache disorders in primary care on behalf of the European Headache Federation and Lifting The Burden: The Global Campaign to Reduce the Burden of Headache Worldwide (2007) European principles of management of common headache disorders in primary care The HALT and HART indices Why HURT? A review of clinical instruments for headache management The Headache Under-Response to Treatment (HURT) Questionnaire: assessment of utility in headache specialist care The Headache-Attributed Lost Time (HALT) Indices: measures of burden for clinical management and population-based research The headache under-response to treatment (HURT) questionnaire, an outcome measure to guide follow-up in primary care: development, psychometric evaluation and assessment of utility Does primary-care use of the HURT questionnaire aid the reduction of headache burden? Lessons for study design from an evaluation in primary care of the Arabic version Information for patients What to tell patients about migraine What to tell patients about tension-type headache What to tell patients about cluster headache What to tell patients about headache occurring on more days than not Translation protocol for technical documents Translation protocol for lay documents Translation protocol for hybrid documents At: https:// migra ine-acute-treat ment. ime. sprin gerhe althc are Quality in the provision of headache care. 1: systematic review of the literature and commentary Quality in the provision of headache care. 2: defining quality and its indicators Evaluation of headache service quality indicators: pilot implementation in two specialist-care centres Headache service quality: evaluation of quality indicators in 14 specialist-care centres Quality indicators in headache care: an implementation study in six Italian specialist-care centres Societal impact of headache. Burden, costs and response on behalf of European Headache Federation and Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache (2021) Headache service quality evaluation: implementation of quality indicators in primary care in Productivity impact of headache on a heavy-manufacturing workforce in Turkey Productivity losses attributable to headache, and their attempted recovery, in a heavymanufacturing workforce in Turkey: implications for employers and politicians The relationship between headache-attributed disability and lost productivity: 1. A review of the literature The relationship between headache-attributed disability and lost productivity: 2. Empirical evidence from population-based studies in nine disparate countries A universal outcome measure for headache treatments, care-delivery systems and economic analysis Time is of the essence in headache measurement Cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions for migraine in four low-and middle-income countries on behalf of the European Brain Council Value of Treatment Headache Working Group, the European Headache Federation, the European Federation of Neurological Associations and Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache (2021) Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache. 2. Modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementation in on behalf of the European Brain Council Value of Treatment Headache Working Group, the European Headache Federation, the European Federation of Neurological Associations and Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache (2021) Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache. 3. Modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementation in Europe: Findings and conclusions Societal impact of headache. Burden, costs and response Migraine: epidemiology and systems of care The Global Campaign against Headache We are very grateful to our strategic and other partners, and to our academic collaborators around the world -far too many to acknowledge individually, who have made possible the activities reported here. All authors have made essential contributions to the activities reported here. All have reviewed and approved the final manuscript.