↓ Skip to main content

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use Among US Adults With Headache or Migraine: Results from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey

Overview of attention for article published in Headache: The Journal of Head & Face Pain, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
31 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use Among US Adults With Headache or Migraine: Results from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey
Published in
Headache: The Journal of Head & Face Pain, July 2017
DOI 10.1111/head.13148
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Given the safety concerns regarding pharmacological agents, and the considerable impact of headache and migraine on the sufferer's quality of life, many people seek other treatment options beyond conventional medication and care to address their symptoms; this includes complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Some CAM interventions have shown promising results in clinical trials of headache and migraine management. Nonetheless, there has been little research exploring the reasons for using CAM, and the types of CAM used, among this population. The study aimed to answer the following questions: (1) Which CAM modalities are used most frequently among migraine/headache sufferers? and (2) What are the self-reported reasons for CAM use among migraine/headache sufferers? This secondary analysis of data from the 2012 U.S. NHIS (a national cross-sectional survey) examined the use of CAM among migraine/headache sufferers, including the main reasons related to CAM use. Data were weighted and analyzed using STATA 14.0. The sample of 34,525 adults included 6558 (18.7%) headache/migraine sufferers. Of the headache/migraine sufferers, a substantial proportion (37.6%, n = 2427) used CAM for various conditions; however, CAM use specifically for headache/migraine was much less prevalent (3.3%, n = 216). Of those who used CAM for headache/migraine, about half used CAM in conjunction with prescription (47.8%, n = 100) or over-the-counter medication (55.1%, n = 113). As severity of headache/migraine increased so did the likelihood of using CAM (severe migraine odds ratio [OR] = 2.32; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41, 3.82; both recurring headache/severe migraine OR = 3.36; 95% CI: 2.08, 5.43; when compared to those with recurring headache only). The most frequently used CAM modality among all headache/migraine sufferers (N = 6558) was manipulative therapy (22.0%, n = 1317), herbal supplementation (21.7%, n = 1389) and mind-body therapy (17.9%, n = 1100). The top 3 reasons for using CAM for headache were general wellness (28.7%, n = 60/209), improving overall health (26.8%, n = 56/209), and reducing stress (16.7%, n = 35/209). Although CAM is used by many sufferers of headache/migraine, the use of CAM specifically for the treatment of headache/migraine is relatively low in the United States. The study also assesses the key differences of CAM use among headache/migraine sufferers in NHIS 2012 compared with those in NHIS 2007, and identifies shortfalls in the evidence-base of several CAM modalities used by U.S. adults for headache/migraine. This information may assist health providers and consumers in making informed decisions about the safest and most appropriate approach to managing headache/migraine.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 9%
Researcher 10 8%
Other 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 6%
Other 25 21%
Unknown 50 41%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 56 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,571,043
of 34,020,007 outputs
Outputs from Headache: The Journal of Head & Face Pain
#359
of 4,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,542
of 356,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Headache: The Journal of Head & Face Pain
#4
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,020,007 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 356,985 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.