The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Chronic Headache Education and Self-Management Study (CHESS): a process evaluation

Chronic Headache Education and Self-Management Study (CHESS): a process evaluation
Chronic Headache Education and Self-Management Study (CHESS): a process evaluation
Background
The Chronic Headache Education and Self-Management Study (CHESS) multicentre randomised trial evaluated the impact a group education and self-management support intervention with a best usual care plus relaxation control for people living with chronic headache disorders (tension type headaches or chronic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache). Here we report the process evaluation exploring potential explanations for the lack of positive effects from the CHESS intervention.

Methods
The CHESS trial included 736 (380 intervention: 356 control) people across the Midlands and London UK. We used a mixed methods approach. Our extensive process evaluation looked at context, reach, recruitment, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity and experiences of participating in the trial, and included participants and trial staff. We also looked for evidence in our qualitative data to investigate whether the original causal assumptions underpinning the intervention were realised.

Results
The CHESS trial reached out to a large diverse population and recruited a representative sample. Few people with chronic tension type headaches without migraine were identified and recruited. The expected ‘dose‘of the intervention was delivered to participants and intervention fidelity was high. Attendance (“dose received”) fell below expectation, although 261/380 (69%) received at least at least the pre-identified minimum dose. Intervention participants generally enjoyed being in the groups but there was little evidence to support the causal assumptions underpinning the intervention were realised.

Conclusions
From a process evaluation perspective despite our extensive data collection and analysis, we do not have a clear understanding of why the trial outcome was negative as the intervention was delivered as planned. However, the lack of evidence that the intervention causal assumptions brought about the planned behaviour change may provide some insight. Our data suggests only modest changes in managing headache behaviours and some disparity in how participants engaged with components of the intervention within the timeframe of the study. Moving forwards, we need a better understanding of how those who live with chronic headache can be helped to manage this disabling condition more effectively over time.
1471-2377
Pincus, Tamar
55388347-5d71-4fc0-9fd2-66fbba080e0c
Ellard, David R.
cf04e335-5c05-48e1-8e4d-48796b1a21d8
Nichols, Vivien P
59c3c2f6-8759-460b-b3d1-812fd412ecaf
Griffiths, Frances E
1daee47e-c7f0-429e-9a04-464949ed8f2f
Underwood, Martin
9788eec9-9e09-4c92-8df6-d71ad5993bee
Taylor, Stephanie J C
f7d93ca3-4720-432d-a41b-92b6267761a8
Pincus, Tamar
55388347-5d71-4fc0-9fd2-66fbba080e0c
Ellard, David R.
cf04e335-5c05-48e1-8e4d-48796b1a21d8
Nichols, Vivien P
59c3c2f6-8759-460b-b3d1-812fd412ecaf
Griffiths, Frances E
1daee47e-c7f0-429e-9a04-464949ed8f2f
Underwood, Martin
9788eec9-9e09-4c92-8df6-d71ad5993bee
Taylor, Stephanie J C
f7d93ca3-4720-432d-a41b-92b6267761a8

Pincus, Tamar, Ellard, David R., Nichols, Vivien P, Griffiths, Frances E, Underwood, Martin and Taylor, Stephanie J C (2023) Chronic Headache Education and Self-Management Study (CHESS): a process evaluation. BMC Neurology, 23, [8].

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background
The Chronic Headache Education and Self-Management Study (CHESS) multicentre randomised trial evaluated the impact a group education and self-management support intervention with a best usual care plus relaxation control for people living with chronic headache disorders (tension type headaches or chronic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache). Here we report the process evaluation exploring potential explanations for the lack of positive effects from the CHESS intervention.

Methods
The CHESS trial included 736 (380 intervention: 356 control) people across the Midlands and London UK. We used a mixed methods approach. Our extensive process evaluation looked at context, reach, recruitment, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity and experiences of participating in the trial, and included participants and trial staff. We also looked for evidence in our qualitative data to investigate whether the original causal assumptions underpinning the intervention were realised.

Results
The CHESS trial reached out to a large diverse population and recruited a representative sample. Few people with chronic tension type headaches without migraine were identified and recruited. The expected ‘dose‘of the intervention was delivered to participants and intervention fidelity was high. Attendance (“dose received”) fell below expectation, although 261/380 (69%) received at least at least the pre-identified minimum dose. Intervention participants generally enjoyed being in the groups but there was little evidence to support the causal assumptions underpinning the intervention were realised.

Conclusions
From a process evaluation perspective despite our extensive data collection and analysis, we do not have a clear understanding of why the trial outcome was negative as the intervention was delivered as planned. However, the lack of evidence that the intervention causal assumptions brought about the planned behaviour change may provide some insight. Our data suggests only modest changes in managing headache behaviours and some disparity in how participants engaged with components of the intervention within the timeframe of the study. Moving forwards, we need a better understanding of how those who live with chronic headache can be helped to manage this disabling condition more effectively over time.

Text
s12883-022-02792-1 (1) - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (1MB)
Text
s12883-022-02792-1 (1) - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (1MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 5 July 2022
Published date: 7 January 2023

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 476820
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/476820
ISSN: 1471-2377
PURE UUID: 2a7fedb5-369d-4063-b93b-5d287e117e75
ORCID for Tamar Pincus: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-3172-5624

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 16 May 2023 17:02
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:11

Export record

Contributors

Author: Tamar Pincus ORCID iD
Author: David R. Ellard
Author: Vivien P Nichols
Author: Frances E Griffiths
Author: Martin Underwood
Author: Stephanie J C Taylor

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×