Skip to main content
Skip to main content

AAP Gateway

Advanced Search »

User menu

  • Login
  • AAP Policy
  • Topic/Program Collections
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Alerts
  • Subscribe
  • aap.org

Menu

  • AAP Grand Rounds
  • AAP News
  • Hospital Pediatrics
  • NeoReviews
  • Pediatrics
  • Pediatrics in Review
  • Current AAP Policy
  • Journal CME
  • AAP Career Center
  • Pediatric Collections
  • AAP Journals Catalog

Sections

    • Login
    • AAP Policy
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Alerts
    • Subscribe
    • aap.org

    Sign up for Insight Alerts highlighting editor-chosen studies with the greatest impact on clinical care.
    Video Abstracts -- brief videos summarizing key findings of new articles
     

    Advertising Disclaimer »

    Tools and Links

    Pediatrics
    November 2013, VOLUME 132 / ISSUE 5
    Article

    Complementary and Conventional Medicine Use Among Youth With Recurrent Headaches

    Christina Bethell, Kathi J. Kemper, Narangerel Gombojav, Thomas K. Koch
    • Article
    • Figures & Data
    • Info & Metrics
    • Comments
    Loading
    Download PDF

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVE: To identify prevalence and patterns of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among youth with recurrent headaches (HA) and evaluate associations with co-occurring health problems and limitations as well as with the use and expenditures for conventional medical care.

    METHODS: Variables were constructed for youth aged 10 to 17 by using linked data from the 2007 National Health Interview Survey and the 2008 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey. Bivariate, logistic, and 2-part regression analyses were used.

    RESULTS: Of the 10.6% of youth experiencing HA, 29.6% used CAM, rising to 41% for the many HA sufferers who also experienced difficulties with emotions, concentration, behavior, school attendance, or daily activities. Biologically based products (16.2%) and mind-body therapies (13.3%) were most commonly used, especially by the 86.4% of youth with HA experiencing at least 1 other chronic condition. Compared with non-CAM users, youth with HA who used CAM also had higher expenditures for and use of most types of conventional care.

    CONCLUSIONS: CAM use is most common among youth with HA experiencing multiple chronic conditions and difficulties in daily functioning. Associations among CAM use, multiple chronic conditions, and higher use of conventional care highlight the need for medical providers to routinely ask about CAM use to meet the complex health needs of their patients and facilitate the optimal integration of care. Research is needed to identify models for coordinating complementary and conventional care within a medical home and to understand the health benefits or risks associated with CAM use in conjunction with conventional treatments for patients with HA.

    • headache
    • adolescents
    • complementary and alternative medicine
    • medical expenditures
    • multiple chronic conditions
  • Abbreviations:
    AOR —
    adjusted odds ratio
    CAM —
    complementary and alternative medicine
    CI —
    confidence interval
    EMB —
    emotional, mental or behavioral health problem
    HA —
    recurrent headache
    MEPS —
    Medical Expenditures Panel Survey
    NHIS —
    National Health Interview Survey
  • What’s Known on This Subject:

    Use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasingly common among American youth; however, information on use of CAM among youth with recurrent headache (HA) is limited.

    What This Study Adds:

    Youth across a range of chronic conditions experience HA. These youth are more likely to use CAM. Use and expenditures for conventional medical care, and increased difficulties in activity and functioning are greater for youth with HA who use CAM.

    Recurrent headaches (HAs) are common, especially among adolescents.1–10 Publicly available data from the National Survey of Children’s Health reveal that 5.3% of children aged 6 to 17 in the United States experience frequent and severe HA, including migraine.11 Nearly three-quarters (72.8%) of these are adolescents aged 12 to 17 years, with overall prevalence of 7.5% for this age group. In addition, the prevalence of HA is 2 times greater among the 18.4% of youth aged 12 to 17 who have special health care needs (16.0%).12 Studies suggest that many youth with HA experience HA on a weekly basis13–19 and that they are 4 times more likely to miss an above routine number of school days and to have repeated emergency department visits.20

    Common conventional recommendations to prevent HA include improving lifestyle, particularly diet, sleep, and stress.21–30 Dietary changes include avoiding dietary HA triggers, such as processed meats, cheeses, caffeine, chocolate, aspartame, MSG, and foods containing tyramine, histamine, phenylalanine, nitrites, and sulfites.31,32 Improved sleeping behavior (avoiding sleep deficits or erratic sleep behavior) is another fundamental strategy to prevent HA, particularly migraines.28,33 Stress-management strategies, such as slow deep breathing, self-hypnosis, autogenic training, biofeedback, mindfulness meditation, and progressive muscle relaxation have also been recommended.30,34–37 Based on emerging evidence, some clinicians also recommend dietary supplements that decrease inflammation (omega-3 fatty acids) and dietary supplements, such as riboflavin, magnesium, and coenzyme Q10.38–44 However, some clinicians are not familiar with these therapies; therefore, they do not use them and do not inquire about them. So, little is known about the extent of their impact or use by their patients who experience HA.

    Within pediatrics, adolescents are the most common users of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies and have the highest prevalence of HA.45 Based on clinical and population-specific studies, adolescents most commonly use biologically based dietary approaches (both avoiding dietary triggers and taking dietary supplements) and mind-body practices, many of which can be implemented at costs lower than CAM modalities requiring professional assistance.46–49 The efficacy of acupuncture, thermal biofeedback, and hypnosis for children with HA has been documented.50 However, little is known about the extent of the use of these types of CAM therapies among youth experiencing HA. We especially lack population-based prevalence estimates on the use of CAM among youth with HA and knowledge regarding associations with co-occurring chronic conditions that may also impact HA symptoms, functioning, and treatment response.51–55 This information would be useful to clinicians who counsel children and families and to researchers seeking to understand the effectiveness of the most widely used CAM therapies. The relationship between the use of CAM and conventional medical care among youth with HA also requires further research. This information would be useful to inform clinicians and researchers interested in providing personalized, coordinated care, such as is advanced in the numerous national efforts to promote the primary care medical home model in pediatrics.56 We conducted this study to answer 2 primary questions that address these knowledge gaps:

    1. What is the population prevalence and patterns of CAM use for youth who experience HA overall and across clinically relevant subgroups of youth with HA?

    2. Do the demographic, health, and conventional care utilization characteristics of youth with HA who use CAM differ from those who do not use CAM?

    Methods

    Data Sources

    This study analyzes data from 2 national surveys: the 2007 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the 2008 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS). These survey years are the most recent available that allow linking data from the NHIS Child CAM Supplement to the MEPS health care expenditures data sets, which is required to evaluate conventional medical care expenditures (MEPS data) among youth using CAM (NHIS data). Five 2007 NHIS data files (Family, Imputed Income, Person, Sample Child, and Child Complementary and Alternative Medicine Supplement) were linked, resulting in 9417 sampled children. To obtain health care expenditure data, the linked NHIS file was further linked to the panel of the 2008 MEPS Full-Year Consolidated Household File that includes the NHIS sampling frame (Panel 13). The NHIS/MEPS linked file contains 2411 sample children.

    Subjects

    For purposes of this study, youth were defined as those aged 10 to 17 years. The NHIS data file includes 4263 youth and NHIS/MEPS linked file contains 1070 youth, resulting in a representative sample of an estimated 33.2 million youth aged 10 to 17 in the United States.

    Key Variables

    An overall CAM use variable indicates past year use of 1 or more of the 39 types of CAM modalities assessed in the 2007 NHIS, with the exception that multivitamin use was not included, and only specific vitamins and minerals used in the past 30 days were included.57 CAM modalities were grouped in 2 ways. The first uses categories set forth by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine: biologically based; mind-body, manipulative/body-based, alternative medical systems; and energy healing therapy.58 Although normally a stand-alone category, due to small sample sizes, energy healing therapy was combined with alternative medical systems. The second grouping categorizes modalities according to whether they represent products (eg, herbs), practices (eg, yoga), or services (eg, acupuncture) (Table 2).

    A recurrent headache (HA) chronic condition variable was based on responses to 2 questions in the NHIS Sample Child Core file indicating whether in the past 12 months youth had (1) frequent or severe HA, including migraine, or (2) recurring headaches, other than migraine. In addition, 10 categories of health conditions (other than HA) were constructed based on NHIS questions assessing if the youth was ever diagnosed with and/or experienced in the past 12 months any of the 56 other (non-HA) health conditions asked about (Fig 2); 43 of which were categorized as chronic (Table 1) and 13 as common acute or other/chronicity unclear. Because most youth with any condition experience more than 1 condition, it is not possible to construct mutually exclusive categories of health conditions. Note that small samples prevent construction of separate categories for each condition included in the admittedly diverse “Other Conditions” group.

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Characteristics of Youth Aged 10 to 17 With HA: By Use of CAM Therapies, 2007 NHIS Data

    Finally, functional status variables assessing whether youth experienced definite or severe difficulties in emotions, concentration, or behavior; had missed 2 or more weeks of school in the past year; or were limited in daily activities were also constructed to differentiate whether, beyond presence of HA and other conditions, CAM use is further associated with functioning in daily life.

    Analytic Methods

    All data were weighted to represent the US population of children 10 to 17 years old. Weights for the NHIS/MEPS-linked file were constructed adjusting the MEPS Panel 13 weights to reflect the NHIS probabilities of selection for subsampling of children and then, as recommended, weights were further adjusted through raking by age, gender, race/ethnicity, and US geographic region.59,60 Differences in the prevalence of CAM use and associations with youth demographic, health, and health care use characteristics were assessed using standardized t tests and χ2 tests. Simple rate-ratio calculations were used to compare CAM use across condition groups according to whether youth in each group also experienced HA. Logistic regression analyses were further used to assess the significance of differences in CAM use observed among youth with multiple chronic conditions in which 1 of the conditions is or is not HA and youth with HA who do or do not also experience difficulties with daily functioning. A standard 2-part model was used to estimate health care expenditures controlling for child’s age, gender, race, US geographic region, and family income.61 SPSS 19.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics, IBM Corporation, Chicago, IL) with complex samples was used for all analyses.

    Results

    Characteristics of Youth With HA Who Used CAM

    As shown in Table 1, 10.6% of all US youth aged 10 to 17 were estimated to experience HA based on the NHIS. Of these, 29.6% had used 1 or more types of CAM in the past 12 months, representing 1.03 million youth. Compared with youth with HA who do not use CAM, CAM users were significantly (P < .05) more likely to be older (41.3% vs 32.1% aged 16 to 17) and white (73.4% vs 54.4%), and to live in homes with higher incomes (26.7% vs 19.7% 400% Federal Poverty Level [FPL] or above), to have private health insurance (69.5% vs 55.0%), and higher maternal education (71.9% vs 55.8% more than high school). Youth with HA who used CAM were also significantly more likely than their non-CAM–using counterparts to experience at least 1 of the other 43 conditions assessed in the NHIS and categorized as chronic (94% vs 83.3%), including 51% who experienced co-occurring emotional, mental, or behavioral health problem (EMB) conditions and 51% experiencing co-occurring pain-related conditions other than HA. Youth with HA who used CAM were also significantly more likely than those who did not use CAM to have experienced difficulties with emotions, concentration, or behavior (19.5% vs 12.6%); school attendance (22.1% vs 7.7% missing 2+ weeks); and functioning in daily activities (25.4% vs 14.5%). No differences were observed in CAM use among youth with HA across regions of the United States (P = .16; data not shown).

    Patterns of CAM Use

    Of the 4 CAM categories assessed, those most often used by youth with HA were biologically based (16.2%) and mind-body therapies (13.3%), with higher rates of use across all CAM types for youth with HA who also experience other chronic conditions. Patterns of use across CAM categories vary depending on the nature of the other conditions experienced, with mind-body therapies being more likely for youth with HA and EMB conditions; whereas, manipulative-body–based therapies were more common for those also experiencing other pain-related conditions (Table 2). CAM products (17.0%) and practices (15.3%), which do not necessarily require provision by a trained professional, were more commonly used than CAM services requiring trained professionals (10.1%). Among youth with HA, the most commonly used CAM modalities were specific vitamins/minerals used in the past 30 days (17.6%); herbal supplements (9.8%); deep-breathing exercises (8.7%); chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation (5.4%); yoga, tai chi, or qi gong (5.0%); meditation (3.1%); and massage (2.8%). Nearly half of youth with HA who used CAM used more than 1 CAM modality (47.2%), compared with only one-third of youth who used CAM but did not experience HA (P = .02). Common combinations included naturopathy and herbal supplements (all youth using naturopathy used herbal supplements), progressive relaxation and deep breathing exercises (all youth using progressive relaxation used deep breathing exercises [DBE]), support group meeting and deep breathing exercises (87.3% of youth using support group meeting used DBE), and meditation and deep breathing exercises (82.3% of youth using meditation used DBE).

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Prevalence of CAM Use Among Youth, by HA and Multiple Chronic Condition Status

    CAM Use for Youth With HA, Multiple Conditions, and Difficulties With Daily Functioning

    As shown in Table 2, the rate of CAM use among youth with HA is 1.7 times higher than the rate of CAM use among adolescents without HA (29.6% vs 17.4%, P < .0001). Logistic regression models revealed that, overall, youth with HA had 2.13 greater odds of using CAM (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.61–2.91) compared with youth without HA, after controlling for differences in age, gender, race/ethnicity, household income and US region of residence. As shown in Fig 1, regardless of HA status, youth experiencing multiple chronic conditions (2+ of those assessed in the NHIS) were also more likely to use CAM. However, when 1 of these conditions was HA, CAM use prevalence was even greater (32.2% vs 26.3%). Across the full range of condition categories evaluated, youth were 1.15 to 2.84 times more likely to use CAM if they also experienced HA than if they did not experience HA. As shown in Fig 2, despite small sample sizes in several condition categories, higher rates of CAM use for youth with HA were statistically significant for 6 of the 10 condition categories evaluated: gastroenterological, respiratory, common acute, neurologic, dermatological, and the diverse “other” category of conditions. Finally, as shown in Fig 3, 41% of youth with HA who also had difficulties with emotions, concentration or behavior, school attendance, or daily activities (32.1% of youth with HA) used CAM, compared with 24.2% of those with HA who did not experience these difficulties (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.34; 95% CI 1.38–3.97).

    FIGURE 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1

    Prevalence of CAM use among youth, by multiple chronic condition and HA status. Data Source: 2007 NHIS. AORs are adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, household income, and US region in which the child lives. Note: HA as measured in this study is considered a chronic condition.

    FIGURE 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2

    Prevalence of CAM use among youth aged 10 to 17 across 10 health condition categories, by co-occurring HA status. Data Source: 2007 NHIS. Note: Percents shown in the parentheses are percentages of children with condition type who experience headache. Non-HA, Pain-Related: arthritis, abdominal pain, back/neck pain, other chronic pain. EMB: anxiety/stress, depression, attention-deficit disorder/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, phobia/fears, insomnia/trouble sleeping, bedwetting/incontinence. Gastroenterologic Related: food/digestive allergies, frequent diarrhea/colitis, acid reflux/heartburn, nausea/vomiting, recurring constipation. Respiratory/pulmonary: asthma, hay fever, respiratory allergies; other lung/breathing problem, sinusitis, other allergies. Common acute: 3 or more ear infections, fever, head/chest cold, influenza/pneumonia, strep sore throat, other sore throat, urinary tract infection, nausea/vomiting. Developmental: autism, cerebral palsy (only last 2 quarters of data due to data validity issue noted by the NCHS),62 Down syndrome, muscular dystrophy, mental retardation, speech problems, developmental delay, learning disability. Non-HA Neurologic: seizure, other neurologic problems. Sensory Related: hearing problems, vision problems. Dermatologic: eczema/skin allergy, severe acne, warts, skin problems other than eczema. Any Other: cancer, congenital heart disease, chickenpox, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, other heart problems, problems with being overweight, menstrual problems, fatigue/lack of energy, gum disease, anemia, and sickle cell anemia.

    FIGURE 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3

    Prevalence of CAM use among youth with HA, by presence of difficulties with emotions, concentration or behavior, school attendance, or daily activities.*Data Source: 2007 NHIS. CI, 95% CI. *Includes definite or severe difficulties in emotions, concentration, or behavior; missing more than 2 weeks of school during the year and limitations in performing daily activities, such as personal care, movement, cognitive ability, and memory. **Adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, family income, and US region child lives.

    Conventional Medical Care Use and CAM Use

    As shown in Table 3, youth experiencing HA who used CAM had significantly higher use of conventional medical care compared with youth experiencing HA who did not use CAM, including 6 or more physician or other health care professional office visits (38.6% vs 25.1%, P = .03), care from a specialist (40.2% vs 22.1%, P = .003), mental health visits (26.8% vs 13.8%, P = .02), or special therapies, such as physical, speech, respiratory, or occupational therapist or audiologist (17.0% vs 4.9%, P = .03) (Table 3). Both the amount and type of conventional medical care use is predictive of CAM use among youth with HA. Although a full exploration is beyond the scope of this paper, to illustrate, whereas 8.7% of youth with HA used deep-breathing exercises, 24.9% did so if they also saw a mental health provider.

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Rates of Conventional Medical Care Use (Annual) and Average Adjusted Overall Medical Expenditures for Youth With HA, By CAM Use and Multiple Chronic Condition Status

    Table 3 also shows that total health care expenditures are estimated to be significantly higher for youth with HA who used CAM compared with both those without HA ($2929 vs $1503 average adjusted expenditures, P < .05) and youth with HA who did not use CAM ($2929 vs $2031, P < .05). Total health care expenditures increase further for youth with HA who used CAM when they also experienced multiple health conditions. Total out-of-pocket expenditures for conventional medical care were also significantly higher among youth with HA who used CAM, with significantly higher rate of expenditures for prescription medications if they also experience EMB conditions (79.5%) (P = .03).

    Discussion

    Previous studies have reported on factors associated with CAM use in pediatrics63 and CAM use among youth with HA in specific clinical settings or populations.30,34–37 In contrast, this study examined the use of CAM among representative samples of all youth in the United States who experience HA. We describe the demographic and health-related characteristics of youth with HA who use CAM and document key patterns of both CAM and conventional medical care use among these youth. These population-based findings integrating information about CAM use with conventional medical care are consistent with clinically focused studies on CAM use among youth with HA. For example, CAM use is higher among chronically ill populations than among those without such conditions.45

    Findings also point to policy issues related to health insurance coverage for CAM modalities and potential disparities in access to those approaches that are potentially beneficial. For instance, greater use among youth living in higher income households with private sector health insurance may be presumed to be due to the financial access these youth enjoy. To the extent that CAM has been demonstrated to be helpful for HA (eg, relaxation and mindfulness practices that relieve pain and stress, thermal biofeedback, acupuncture, hypnosis),50 this disparity in access may further disadvantage minority and impoverished youth. Low rates of those modalities with the greatest evidence of benefit among all youth with HA may suggest a potential underuse of CAM modalities overall (eg, some mind-body therapies).

    Greater use of CAM among older youth is consistent with earlier studies that suggest that biological therapies, such as herbs and supplements, are the most commonly used CAM therapies by young adults.48 Higher use of these products among older teens may reflect their greater mobility and independence, which allows them to seek these remedies in supermarkets, pharmacies, health food stores, and online more easily than younger children. It also means that parents as well as clinicians may not be aware an older adolescent is using these products unless he or she is specifically asked. Higher use of CAM among older teens may also reflect their increasing maturity and comfort with CAM modalities that involve self-regulation, self-reflection, and taking responsibility for one’s own health.

    Our findings have cross-cutting implications for clinicians and researchers working with the nation’s estimated 3.5 million youth aged 10 to 17 who experience HA and who have a 2.1 times greater likelihood of using CAM compared with youth who do not experience HA. Findings may compel many conventional care providers treating HA to learn and inquire about CAM therapies and to proactively recommend and coordinate care with youths’ use of CAM products or practices as well as with CAM service providers directly. Although notable gaps exist, important evidence supports the use of many types of CAM for treating HA, including some of the modalities used by youth with HA, such as special diets, dietary supplements, herbs, and deep-breathing practices.39,50

    These findings have especially important implications for conventional care providers who care for the nation’s 11.2 million children with chronic conditions and special health care needs that national surveillance data have routinely shown most often experience multiple co-occurring conditions. In this study, we find that nearly all children experiencing HA have other chronic conditions, especially if they also use CAM (94%) and that youth across the range of other chronic conditions who also experience HA are significantly more likely to use CAM compared with children with these same types of conditions who do not experience HA. Because CAM users are substantially more likely to experience functional difficulties affecting daily life (eg, problems with emotions, concentration, or behavior or missed school), clinical assessments of functioning in addition to diagnostic status may be good indicators to alert clinicians to inquire further about the use and potential benefit of CAM.64

    The prevalence of EMB conditions and other pain conditions among CAM-using youth with HA (about 51% each) was substantially higher than the prevalence of these problems among youth without HA (18% and 9% respectively). When clinicians see youth with HA, it is worthwhile probing about other health conditions, including emotional and mental health conditions, as well as CAM use. CAM use among youth with HA may serve as a red flag to alert clinicians to poor functional status and perhaps the need for additional health services, such as mental/behavioral health and social work to address all the factors contributing to functional limitations.

    Higher use of conventional care suggests that youth are not using CAM instead of conventional care, but in addition to it. For example, CAM users were almost twice as likely to receive care from specialist physicians and mental health professionals as non-CAM users. Furthermore, among those with HA and EMB who used CAM, nearly 60% also used prescription medications for 3 or more months. This finding raises concerns about the potential for CAM-conventional care interactions. Also, clinicians who are unaware of CAM use may misattribute observed improvements or toxicity to a conventional therapy rather than CAM, undermining the basis for suggesting modifications in therapy.

    Overall findings on higher conventional medical care use and expenditures among CAM users suggest that CAM use may point to key health needs requiring further attention and proactive care coordination.65

    This study was based on national cross-sectional survey data and did not address questions that can only be answered in prospective controlled trials (eg, whether CAM use is beneficial or harmful) or longitudinal studies (eg, impact of CAM on health across time). Furthermore, a survey in which parents answer retrospectively on behalf of youth may not detect the entire range and extent of CAM use that might be detected by directly asking youth to complete daily diaries prospectively. It did not include all types of care that some might consider complementary care, such as prayer and home remedies, and did not ask about the intensity and frequency of CAM use or severity of HA. In addition to demographic factors and co-occurring conditions, CAM use might be influenced by disease severity or local variations in availability of CAM therapies. Although state licensure for CAM practitioners varies state by state, the sample was insufficient to conduct analyses on a state-by-state level. The linked MEPS-NHIS file does allow for basic evaluation of whether children experience care reflective of having a medical home. However, sample sizes in the linked file for children with HA were insufficient to include the analyses in this study.

    Conclusions

    The study found that CAM use is common among youth with HA with multiple chronic conditions and functional difficulties, along with higher rates of conventional medical care among youth with HA who use CAM. The study findings support for proactive efforts among pediatricians and pediatric specialists to ask patient’s about co-occurring health conditions, functioning, and CAM use and to integrate CAM into conventional care. The study suggests that there is a need to support clinicians with easy access to available information about effectiveness, availability, and indicators of quality CAM modalities/practitioners. Additional research is needed to determine how comprehensive history taking and integration of care within the context of a medical home affects CAM use and health outcomes.

    Footnotes

      • Accepted August 9, 2013.
    • Address correspondence to Christina Bethell, PhD, MBA, MPH, Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative, Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, 707 SW Gaines Ave, Mailcode CDRC-P, Portland, OR 97219. E-mail: bethellc{at}ohsu.edu
    • Dr Bethell led the study design and implementation of all associated data analysis and the writing of each section of the manuscript; Dr Kemper suggested the paper’s focus on recurrent headache and contributed to the introduction, discussion, and reference list, and consulted and provided edits related to methods and results; Dr Gombojav implemented the data analysis plan and assisted in the production of data findings, tables, and graphs, participated in the drafting of the methods and results sections of the article, and conducted final data checks for all analyses; and Dr Koch participated in the development of the paper rationale and focus and design of analytic methods, co-wrote the discussion, and provided edits to all other sections as well as ongoing guidance on ensuring clinical relevance of analyses and presentation of findings.

    • FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

    • FUNDING: Supported by a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine 1 R21 AT004960 01A2. Funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    • POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Blumenfeld AM,
      2. Varon SF,
      3. Wilcox TK,
      4. et al
      . Disability, HRQoL and resource use among chronic and episodic migraineurs: results from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS). Cephalalgia. 2011;31(3):301–315pmid:20813784
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Buse D,
      2. Manack A,
      3. Serrano D,
      4. et al
      . Headache impact of chronic and episodic migraine: results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study. Headache. 2012;52(1):3–17pmid:22106869
      OpenUrlPubMed
      1. Crystal SC,
      2. Robbins MS
      . Epidemiology of tension-type headache. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2010;14(6):449–454pmid:20865353
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Lipton RB,
      2. Bigal ME
      . Ten lessons on the epidemiology of migraine. Headache. 2007;47(suppl 1):S2–S9pmid:17425705
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Natoli JL,
      2. Manack A,
      3. Dean B,
      4. et al
      . Global prevalence of chronic migraine: a systematic review. Cephalalgia. 2010;30(5):599–609pmid:19614702
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Robbins MS,
      2. Lipton RB
      . The epidemiology of primary headache disorders. Semin Neurol. 2010;30(2):107–119pmid:20352581
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Schwartz BS,
      2. Stewart WF,
      3. Simon D,
      4. Lipton RB
      . Epidemiology of tension-type headache. JAMA. 1998;279(5):381–383pmid:9459472
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Stokes M,
      2. Becker WJ,
      3. Lipton RB,
      4. et al
      . Cost of health care among patients with chronic and episodic migraine in Canada and the USA: results from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS). Headache. 2011;51(7):1058–1077pmid:21762134
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Stovner L,
      2. Hagen K,
      3. Jensen R,
      4. et al
      . The global burden of headache: a documentation of headache prevalence and disability worldwide. Cephalalgia. 2007;27(3):193–210pmid:17381554
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      1. Fuh JL,
      2. Wang SJ,
      3. Lu SR,
      4. Liao YC,
      5. Chen SP,
      6. Yang CY
      . Headache disability among adolescents: a student population-based study. Headache. 2010;50(2):210–218pmid:19804389
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) 2007. Data query from the Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative, Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health Web site. Available at: http://childhealthdata.org/browse/survey. Accessed February 11, 2013
    4. ↵
      National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs (NS-CSHCN). 2009-10. Data query from the Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative, Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health Web site. Available at: http://childhealthdata.org/browse/survey. Accessed February 11, 2013
    5. ↵
      1. Andrasik F,
      2. Burke EJ,
      3. Attanasio V,
      4. Rosenblum EL
      . Child, parent, and physician reports of a child’s headache pain: relationships prior to and following treatment. Headache. 1985;25(8):421–425pmid:4086293
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Anttila P
      . Tension-type headache in childhood and adolescence. Lancet Neurol. 2006;5(3):268–274pmid:16488382
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Laurell K,
      2. Larsson B,
      3. Eeg-Olofsson O
      . Headache in schoolchildren: agreement between different sources of information. Cephalalgia. 2003;23(6):420–428pmid:12807521
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Lewis DW,
      2. Ashwal S,
      3. Dahl G,
      4. et al.,
      5. Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology,
      6. Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society
      . Practice parameter: evaluation of children and adolescents with recurrent headaches: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society. Neurology. 2002;59(4):490–498pmid:12196640
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Lundqvist C,
      2. Clench-Aas J,
      3. Hofoss D,
      4. Bartonova A
      . Self-reported headache in schoolchildren: parents underestimate their children’s headaches. Acta Paediatr. 2006;95(8):940–946pmid:16882566
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Richardson GM,
      2. McGrath PJ,
      3. Cunningham SJ,
      4. Humphreys P
      . Validity of the headache diary for children. Headache. 1983;23(4):184–187pmid:6885410
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. van den Brink M,
      2. Bandell-Hoekstra EN,
      3. Abu-Saad HH
      . The occurrence of recall bias in pediatric headache: a comparison of questionnaire and diary data. Headache. 2001;41(1):11–20pmid:11168599
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      Bethell CD, Koch T, Newton K, Read D. The population prevalence, characteristics, health outcomes, and quality of care for children with frequent, severe headache: findings from the National Survey of Children's Health. Pediatric Academic Societies. San Francisco, CA; 2006. Available at: http://childhealthdata.org/docs/drc/bethell-headache-PAS-2006-poster.pdf?Status=Master. Accessed August 30, 2012
    8. ↵
      1. Bigal ME,
      2. Lipton RB
      . Modifiable risk factors for migraine progression. Headache. 2006;46(9):1334–1343pmid:17040331
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Boardman HF,
      2. Thomas E,
      3. Millson DS,
      4. Croft PR
      . Psychological, sleep, lifestyle, and comorbid associations with headache. Headache. 2005;45(6):657–669pmid:15953298
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Holm JE,
      2. Lokken C,
      3. Myers TC
      . Migraine and stress: a daily examination of temporal relationships in women migraineurs. Headache. 1997;37(9):553–558pmid:9385752
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Kelman L
      . The triggers or precipitants of the acute migraine attack. Cephalalgia. 2007;27(5):394–402pmid:17403039
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Lin KC,
      2. Huang CC,
      3. Wu CC
      . Association between stress at work and primary headache among nursing staff in Taiwan. Headache. 2007;47(4):576–584pmid:17445107
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Martin PR,
      2. MacLeod C
      . Behavioral management of headache triggers: avoidance of triggers is an inadequate strategy. Clin Psychol Rev. 2009;29(6):483–495pmid:19556046
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Rains JC
      . Chronic headache and potentially modifiable risk factors: screening and behavioral management of sleep disorders. Headache. 2008;48(1):32–39pmid:18184283
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      1. Sancisi E,
      2. Cevoli S,
      3. Vignatelli L,
      4. et al
      . Increased prevalence of sleep disorders in chronic headache: a case-control study. Headache. 2010;50(9):1464–1472pmid:20572880
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Seidel S,
      2. Hartl T,
      3. Weber M,
      4. et al.,
      5. PAMINA Study Group
      . Quality of sleep, fatigue and daytime sleepiness in migraine—a controlled study. Cephalalgia. 2009;29(6):662–669pmid:19210514
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      1. Rosenzweig S,
      2. Greeson JM,
      3. Reibel DK,
      4. Green JS,
      5. Jasser SA,
      6. Beasley D
      . Mindfulness-based stress reduction for chronic pain conditions: variation in treatment outcomes and role of home meditation practice. J Psychosom Res. 2010;68(1):29–36pmid:20004298
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Sun-Edelstein C,
      2. Mauskop A
      . Foods and supplements in the management of migraine headaches. Clin J Pain. 2009;25(5):446–452pmid:19454881
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      1. Millichap JG,
      2. Yee MM
      . The diet factor in pediatric and adolescent migraine. Pediatr Neurol. 2003;28(1):9–15pmid:12657413
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      1. Lewis DW,
      2. Yonker M,
      3. Winner P,
      4. Sowell M
      . The treatment of pediatric migraine. Pediatr Ann. 2005;34(6):448–460pmid:16018227
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      1. Hermann C,
      2. Blanchard EB
      . Biofeedback in the treatment of headache and other childhood pain. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2002;27(2):143–162pmid:12206048
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Kang EH,
      2. Park JE,
      3. Chung CS,
      4. Yu BH
      . Effect of biofeedback-assisted autogenic training on headache activity and mood states in Korean female migraine patients. J Korean Med Sci. 2009;24(5):936–940pmid:19794995
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Kohen DP
      . Chronic daily headache: helping adolescents help themselves with self-hypnosis. Am J Clin Hypn. 2011;54(1):32–46pmid:21922710
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Lacroix JM,
      2. Clarke MA,
      3. Bock JC,
      4. Doxey NC
      . Physiological changes after biofeedback and relaxation training for multiple-pain tension-headache patients. Percept Mot Skills. 1986;63(1):139–153pmid:2944069
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Harel Z,
      2. Gascon G,
      3. Riggs S,
      4. Vaz R,
      5. Brown W,
      6. Exil G
      . Supplementation with omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in the management of recurrent migraines in adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2002;31(2):154–161pmid:12127385
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Kemper KJ,
      2. Breuner CC
      . Complementary, holistic, and integrative medicine: headaches. Pediatr Rev. 2010;31(2):e17–e23pmid:20124273
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
      1. Bruijn J,
      2. Duivenvoorden H,
      3. Passchier J,
      4. Locher H,
      5. Dijkstra N,
      6. Arts WF
      . Medium-dose riboflavin as a prophylactic agent in children with migraine: a preliminary placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial. Cephalalgia. 2010;30(12):1426–1434pmid:20974610
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Hershey AD,
      2. Powers SW,
      3. Vockell AL,
      4. et al
      . Coenzyme Q10 deficiency and response to supplementation in pediatric and adolescent migraine. Headache. 2007;47(1):73–80pmid:17355497
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Taylor FR
      . Nutraceuticals and headache: the biological basis. Headache. 2011;51(3):484–501pmid:21352223
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Sun-Edelstein C,
      2. Mauskop A
      . Alternative headache treatments: nutraceuticals, behavioral and physical treatments. Headache. 2011;51(3):469–483pmid:21352222
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Slater SK,
      2. Nelson TD,
      3. Kabbouche MA,
      4. et al
      . A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover, add-on study of CoEnzyme Q10 in the prevention of pediatric and adolescent migraine. Cephalalgia. 2011;31(8):897–905pmid:21586650
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. ↵
      1. Kemper KJ,
      2. Vohra S,
      3. Walls R,
      4. Task Force on Complementary and Alternative Medicine,
      5. Provisional Section on Complementary, Holistic, and Integrative Medicine
      . American Academy of Pediatrics. The use of complementary and alternative medicine in pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2008;122(6):1374–1386pmid:19047261
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      1. Breuner CC,
      2. Barry PJ,
      3. Kemper KJ
      . Alternative medicine use by homeless youth. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152(11):1071–1075pmid:9811283
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Shakeel M,
      2. Little SA,
      3. Bruce J,
      4. Ah-See KW
      . Use of complementary and alternative medicine in pediatric otolaryngology patients attending a tertiary hospital in the UK. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2007;71(11):1725–1730pmid:17714796
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. ↵
      1. Gardiner P,
      2. Kemper KJ,
      3. Legedza A,
      4. Phillips RS
      . Factors associated with herb and dietary supplement use by young adults in the United States. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2007;7:39pmid:18053129
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Cotton S,
      2. Luberto CM,
      3. Yi MS,
      4. Tsevat J
      . Complementary and alternative medicine behaviors and beliefs in urban adolescents with asthma. J Asthma. 2011;48(5):531–538pmid:21504264
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      1. Tsao JC,
      2. Zeltzer LK
      . Complementary and alternative medicine approaches for pediatric pain: a review of the state-of-the-science. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2005;2(2):149–159pmid:15937555
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Autret A,
      2. Roux S,
      3. Rimbaux-Lepage S,
      4. Valade D,
      5. Debiais S,
      6. West Migraine Study Group
      . Psychopathology and quality of life burden in chronic daily headache: influence of migraine symptoms. J Headache Pain. 2010;11(3):247–253pmid:20383733
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Beghi E,
      2. Bussone G,
      3. D’Amico D,
      4. et al
      . Headache, anxiety and depressive disorders: the HADAS study. J Headache Pain. 2010;11(2):141–150pmid:20108021
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Heckman BD,
      2. Holroyd KA
      . Tension-type headache and psychiatric comorbidity. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2006;10(6):439–447pmid:17087869
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Monteith TS,
      2. Sprenger T
      . Tension type headache in adolescence and childhood: where are we now? Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2010;14(6):424–430pmid:20927610
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Zwart JA,
      2. Dyb G,
      3. Hagen K,
      4. et al
      . Depression and anxiety disorders associated with headache frequency. The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study. Eur J Neurol. 2003;10(2):147–152pmid:12603289
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    26. ↵
      1. Cooley WC,
      2. McAllister JW,
      3. Sherrieb K,
      4. Kuhlthau K
      . Improved outcomes associated with medical home implementation in pediatric primary care. Pediatrics. 2009;124(1):358–364pmid:19564320
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    27. ↵
      Bethell C, Gombojav N, Stumbo S, et al. Using the National Health Interview Survey and Medical Expenditures Panel Survey to assess the use and impact of complementary and alternative medicine for children in the US: A Meta-Data Methods Summary Report. 2012. The Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. Available at: http://childhealthdata.org/docs/drc/cam-meta-data-report.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2013
    28. ↵
      1. Barnes PM,
      2. Bloom B,
      3. Nahin RL
      . Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults and children: United States, 2007. Natl Health Stat Report. 2008;12(12):1–23pmid:19361005
      OpenUrlPubMed
    29. ↵
      Cohen SB. An estimation methodology to permit longitudinal cohort analyses based on the National Health Interview Survey and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality working paper No. 11002, October 2010. Available at: http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/workingpapers/wp_11002.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2011
    30. ↵
      Battaglia MP, Izrael D, Hoaglin DC, Frankel MR. Practical considerations in raking survey data. Available at: www.abtassociates.com/attachments/raking_survey_data_2_JOS.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2012
    31. ↵
      1. Afifi AA,
      2. Kotlerman JB,
      3. Ettner SL,
      4. Cowan M
      . Methods for improving regression analysis for skewed continuous or counted responses. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007;28:95–111pmid:17112339
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      National Center for Health Statistics. NHIS Survey Description, National Health Interview Survey, 2007. National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, Maryland. 2008.
    33. ↵
      1. Birdee GS,
      2. Phillips RS,
      3. Davis RB,
      4. Gardiner P
      . Factors associated with pediatric use of complementary and alternative medicine. Pediatrics. 2010;125(2):249–256pmid:20100769
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      1. Lorenc A,
      2. Ilan-Clarke Y,
      3. Robinson N,
      4. Blair M
      . How parents choose to use CAM: a systematic review of theoretical models. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2009;9:9pmid:19386106
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. Culbert T,
      2. Olness K
      . Integrative Pediatrics. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press; 2010:88
    • Copyright © 2013 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
    View Abstract
    PreviousNext

     

    Advertising Disclaimer »

    View this article with LENS
    PreviousNext
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Pediatrics.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Complementary and Conventional Medicine Use Among Youth With Recurrent Headaches
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from Pediatrics
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the Pediatrics web site.

    Alerts
    Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
    Citation Tools
    Complementary and Conventional Medicine Use Among Youth With Recurrent Headaches
    Christina Bethell, Kathi J. Kemper, Narangerel Gombojav, Thomas K. Koch
    Pediatrics Nov 2013, 132 (5) e1173-e1183; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-1816

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Share
    Complementary and Conventional Medicine Use Among Youth With Recurrent Headaches
    Christina Bethell, Kathi J. Kemper, Narangerel Gombojav, Thomas K. Koch
    Pediatrics Nov 2013, 132 (5) e1173-e1183; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-1816
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Print
    PDF
    Insight Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Current Policy
    • Early Release
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Policies
    • Overview
    • Features Video
    • Open Access
    • Pediatric Collections
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Submit My Manuscript

    Subjects

    • Neurology
      • Neurology
      • Neurologic Disorders
    • Complementary & Integrative Medicine
      • Complementary & Integrative Medicine
    Back to top

                

    Copyright © 2019 by American Academy of Pediatrics

    International Access »

    Terms of Use
    The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) takes the issue of privacy very seriously. See our Privacy Statement for information about how AAP collects, uses, safeguards and discloses the information collected on our Website from visitors and by means of technology.
    FAQ

     

    AAP Pediatrics