Health-care utilization for primary headache disorders in China: a population-based door-to-door survey
© Liu et al.; licensee Springer. 2013
Received: 9 April 2013
Accepted: 27 May 2013
Published: 3 June 2013
In order to know the status quo of health care for primary headache disorders in China, questions about headache consultation and diagnosis were included in a nationwide population-based survey initiated by Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache.
Throughout China, 5,041 unrelated respondents aged 18–65 years were randomly sampled from the general population and visited unannounced at their homes. After basic sociodemographic and headache diagnostic questions, respondents with headache answered further questions about health-care utilization in the previous year.
Significantly higher proportions of respondents with migraine (239/452; 52.9%) or headache on ≥15 days per month (23/48; 47.9%) had consulted a physician for headache than of those with tension-type headache (TTH) (218/531; 41.1%; P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed associations between disability and probability of consultation in those with migraine (mild vs. minimal: AOR 3.4, 95% CI: 1.6–7.4; moderate vs. minimal: 2.5, 1.2–5.4; severe vs. minimal: 3.9, 1.9–8.1) and between rural habitation and probability of consulting in those with TTH (AOR: 3.5; 95% CI: 1.9–6.3, P < 0.001). Married respondents with TTH were less likely than unmarried to have consulted (AOR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.07–0.93; P = 0.038). About half of consultations (47.8–56.5%) for each of the headache disorders were at clinic level in the health system. Consultations in level-3 hospitals were relatively few for migraine (5.9%) but more likely for headache on ≥15 days/month (8.7%) and, surprisingly, for TTH (13.3%). Under-diagnosis and misdiagnosis were common in consulters. More than half with migraine (52.7%) or headache on ≥15 days/month (51.2%), and almost two thirds (63.7%) with TTH, reported no previous diagnosis. Consulters with migraine were as likely (13.8%) to have been diagnosed with “nervous headache” as with migraine. “Nervous headache” (9.8%) and “vascular headache” (7.6%) were the most likely diagnoses in those with TTH, of whom only 5.6% had previously been correctly diagnosed. These were also the most likely diagnoses (14.0% each) in consulters with headache on ≥15 days/month.
This picture of the status quo shows limited reach of headache services in China, and high rates of under-diagnosis and misdiagnosis in those who achieve access to them. This is not a picture of an efficient or cost-effective response to major causes of public ill-health and disability.
KeywordsChina Headache disorders Migraine Tension-type headache Health-care utilization Global campaign against headache
Headache disorders are common and disabling throughout the world . In the Global Burden of Disease survey 2010, tension-type headache (TTH) and migraine were identified as the second and third most prevalent disorders in the world, and migraine as the seventh highest specific cause of disability . These, and a group of disorders characterized by headache on ≥15 days/month, have a major impact on public health and impose enormous economic costs on society [1–6]. Our recent door-to-door survey of the adult population of China showed that these disorders are common, burdensome and very costly in this country, and that health policy must take account of them .
How effectively do health services meet the needs of people with headache? Published accounts from western countries, notably the United States of America, report that a minority of people with migraine have received this diagnosis from a physician [8–12]; furthermore, of this minority, most do not receive effective therapy [12, 13]. The global survey conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in collaboration with Lifting The Burden, as a project within the Global Campaign against Headache , found the political response to headache was inadequate in all countries, with health-care provision falling far below expectations based on need and on economics . A consensus conference 15 years ago recommended studies to examine patterns of migraine diagnosis and treatment as the first step towards identifying and resolving barriers to its optimal management , but progress has been slow, as WHO’s survey lucidly and emphatically demonstrates .
In China there have been no such studies, and little is known about the status quo of consultations and diagnosis for people with headache in this country. We therefore built an enquiry into our recent population-based survey of headache disorders in China , conducted with support from Lifting The Burden . Population-based surveys, when conducted well, offer a comprehensive and relatively unbiased overview of headache disorders. The additional enquiry reported here was designed primarily to assess the use of health resources for headache in China and, further, to identify possible systemic barriers to headache consultation, correct diagnosis and effective treatment.
The study protocol was approved by the Chinese Ministry of Health and the Ethics Committee of the Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing.
This was a secondary analysis of data from our previously reported nationwide epidemiological survey of primary headache disorders in the mainland of China . In all regions of the country, households were selected using random-sampling software developed by a statistician (X-TC) according to the expanded programme on immunization (EPI) method of WHO . These households were visited unannounced (“cold-calling”), and one adult respondent (aged 18–65 years) was chosen randomly from each. Full methodological details are described elsewhere [7, 18]. In this way we created a sample reasonably representative of the Chinese adult population.
Each participant answered a structured questionnaire. Sociodemographic questions covered gender, age, ethnicity (Han versus other), body-mass index (BMI) (graded as underweight, normal, overweight, obese or morbidly obese ), marital status, habitation (urban versus rural), educational attainment (illiterate, primary school, secondary school, high school, college degree or higher) and annual household income (in CNY: low < 9,600; middle 9,600–59,999; high ≥60,000). The diagnostic question set was validated for migraine and TTH . Participants reporting headache in the preceding year were asked about attack frequency (days/month), attack duration (< 1 hour, 1–24 hours, >24 hours), headache intensity (10-cm visual analogue scale: 0 = no pain, 1–3 = mild pain, 4–7 = moderate pain and 8–10 = severe pain) and associated disability (HALT index : 0–5 days lost in 3 months = minimal; 6–10 = mild; 11–20 = moderate; >20 = severe).
For the specific purposes of this enquiry, they were also asked about health-care utilization: consultations with physicians (in what health-care settings) and diagnoses received (if any). Health-care settings were classified as western medicine (WM) or traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) hospitals. The WM hospitals included community or rural, county or district, municipal and provincial hospitals. In conformity with this structure, we formulated a three-level model of health care for primary headache disorders: community or rural hospitals or clinics or county or district hospitals as level-1 hospitals, municipal hospitals as level-2 hospitals and provincial hospitals as level-3 hospitals.
We looked for associations between sociodemographic factors or headache features and consultation status (consulted versus not consulted). We derived crude ratios of the proportion of consulters in each variable category to that of a reference category. We categorized previous headache diagnoses as “undiagnosed”, “migraine”, “tension-type headache”, “cluster headache”, “vascular headache”, “nervous headache” or “other”.
Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 17.0 software. Continuous variables were summarized as means and standard deviations, and categorical variables as numbers and percentages. We used chi-squared to compare distributions of categorical variables between groups, and used Bonferroni correction to adjust the statistical results for multiple comparisons. We set statistical significance at P < 0.05. We first used binary logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for consulting, and adjusted for potential confounding variables (adjusted odds ratios: AORs), and then used multivariate logistic regression according to sociodemographic characteristics and headache features.
There were 5,041 participants, of whom 1,200 reported headache in previous year and 1060 participants met diagnostic criteria for migraine (n = 469), TTH (n = 543) or headache on ≥15 days/month (n = 48). Among these, 1,031 (452 migraine, 531 TTH, 48 headache on ≥15 days/month) answered the questions about consultation. Fewer than half (46.6%) of the participants with headache reported at least one consultation with any physician for their headache in the year prior to the interview. Those with migraine (52.9%) or headache on ≥15 days/month (47.9%) were significantly more likely to have consulted than those with TTH (41.1%; P < 0.05).
Proportions of respondents reporting consultation for headache in the preceding year, according to diagnosis and socio-demographic characteristics
Bonferroni adjusted P
Bonferroni adjusted P
College level or higher
Annual household income (CNY)
Proportions of respondents reporting consultation for headache in the preceding year, according to diagnosis and headache characteristics
Bonferroni adjusted P
Bonferroni adjusted P
Headache frequency (days/month)
Disability (HALT grade)
Predictors of consultation for headache in the preceding year according to multivariate adjusted binary logistic regression
Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI)
Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI)
Married versus single, divorced or widowed
0.64 (0.15, 2.8)
0.26 (0.07, 0.93)
Rural versus urban
1.2 (0.65, 2.1)
3.5 (1.9, 6.3)
Disability (HALT grade)
Mild versus minimal
3.4 (1.6, 7.4)
1.6 (0.72, 3.6)
Moderate versus minimal
2.5 (1.2, 5.4)
1.8 (0.73, 4.3)
Severe versus minimal
3.9 (1.9, 8.1)
1.5 (0.69, 3.2)
For all of these analyses, numbers with headache on ≥15 days/month were too low.
Level and setting of consultation for headache in the preceding year
Headache on ≥15 days/month
Level or setting
Traditional Chinese medicine hospitals
Previous diagnoses in respondents reporting consultation for headache in the preceding year according to survey diagnosis
Headache on ≥15 days/month
This first nationwide population-based survey of primary headache disorders in China provides much-needed insights into the status quo of health-service utilization and diagnosis in this very large country.
A striking finding of the study is that a majority (53.4%) of people with an active headache disorder had not consulted a physician for it in the year prior to the survey. Nevertheless, this is in complete accord with studies from a number of other countries in Europe and North and South America [21–31]. Perhaps it is the case that the proportion of consulters (46.6%) is even a little higher in China than in western countries. This may not have so much to do with the availability of medical resources as with the barriers to access that exist in different countries, and the differences in care-seeking behaviour among culturally-different populations. Many European medical systems require referral from a primary-care physician in order to seek the advice of a specialist and, in published surveys, 5–15% of people with headache have done so [26, 32, 33]. Mainland China has a system allowing prospective patients to choose any level of medical setting at which to seek diagnosis and treatment for headache. In our survey, 28.1% of respondents who consulted did so at levels 2 or 3 of the hospital system, which represents 13.1% of everyone reporting headache. There is a continuing debate about the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of free access of this sort rather than controlled access according to need [15, 34].
It may be that these levels of consultation-below 50%-do, in fact, reflect need; that is to say, those who are little disabled by their headaches do not need professional health care, but can manage themselves adequately, using over-the-counter medications if necessary. The crucial question is whether the minority who consult are those most likely to benefit. From this perspective, the predictors of consultation are of interest. According to univariate analysis, educational attainment was inversely related to probability of consulting for migraine but not for TTH. Household income had no clear effect. Rural habitation significantly increased the probability of consulting, although this influence survived multivariate analysis only for TTH. Better education is likely to promote self-efficacy and better control over headache attacks with the help of knowledge gleaned from books and the internet. Those who are poorly educated, lacking access to such knowledge, may have greater fear of headache as a symptom, and what it might mean, and this would presumably encourage consultation. The influence of rural habitation is not easily explained; it is speculative to suggest that the rural lifestyle allows more free time to visit a physician. As expected, headache severity and frequency were both positive predictors of consultation, especially for migraine, as was headache-attributed lost productive time. These may be regarded as key indicators of need for health care, suggesting that resources in China are to some extent directed towards those most likely to benefit, but it has to be said that these influences were not strong.
Beyond the issue of access is the quality of care delivered to those who do consult. Our survey was not able to delve deeply into this, because of lack of standards for comparison, but we could consider diagnostic accuracy, having in mind the certain fact that this is a prerequisite for good care . It is the case that under-diagnosis and to some extent misdiagnosis of headache are worldwide concerns . The picture in China that our survey painted is no different, and not an encouraging one. An accurate diagnosis of migraine was recorded in only 13.8% of consulting respondents with this disorder-the same proportion as were given the non-diagnosis of “nervous headache”. Over half had been given no diagnosis. For TTH the situation was substantially worse, with just 5.6% of consulting respondents diagnosed correctly while 63.7% were undiagnosed. The non-diagnoses of “vascular headache” and “nervous headache” were common across all disorders, and accounted for 28.0% of those with headache on ≥15 days/month. Clearly, the international classification of headache disorders (ICHD-II) , almost universally adopted elsewhere, is not widely accepted or used in most hospitals in China. Since management guidelines are fundamentally diagnosis-based, this finding does not raise expectations of high-quality or effective heath care for headache in this country.
Three clear calls arise from this study, directed towards improving awareness of primary headache disorders among people affected by them and among medical professionals in China, so that these disabling disorders might be regarded with greater respect, and better treated. The first call is for public education, explaining the high burden of headache disorders, their biological basis and the effective treatments that are potentially available for them if sought. This education should promote proper and considerate use of health care. It should allay groundless fears of serious disease, such as brain tumour, which provoke many unnecessary consultations at specialist level. The second call is for professional education, bringing ICHD-II  into clinical practice in China so that diagnosis-and management-can come into line with international standards . This call for professional education in headache echoes a similar call, directed at all countries, by WHO and Lifting The Burden following their global survey . The third call is to politicians, to channel the resources these initiatives require. Ultimately, in view of the very high lost-productivity costs of headache in China , this would surely be cost-saving .
Strengths and limitations of the study
There are limitations to our study, but we do not believe they have the effect of negating the key findings. First, we enquired into medical consultations only within the past year. If a headache patient was adequately treated in the year before last, or even earlier, consultation this year might not have been necessary. In theory this could be one reason for the low consultation rate but, given the evident deficiencies in diagnosis, it is highly unlikely that this was the case. In fact, some recall bias is to be expected in reporting consultations over a year. If there was, it is more likely that it resulted in overestimates. People are unlikely to forget the fact of having consulted, but may not remember exactly when they did so. Since people tend to recall past time as shorter in duration than reality, they may include events from a longer period than the specified year. Second, respondents may not have recalled diagnoses previously given, but we would argue that a forgotten diagnosis had not been adequately or effectively imparted. Third, we could not make complete allowance for the use of TCM hospitals, which may have reduced dependence on and consultation rates at WM hospitals. But the number using TCM hospitals was small (n = 34; 3.3% of those reporting headache), so this could not have had more than a negligible effect.
On the other hand, this study used well-established and validated EPI methods  in a population-based nationwide study. The large sample of 5,041 participants was representative of the general population of mainland China, aged 18–65 years, for gender, age distribution, socioeconomic status, type of habitation and region of residence [7, 18].
This epidemiological survey, performed in order to depict the status quo of consultations and diagnosis for people with headache in mainland China, has demonstrated limited reach of headache services in this country and high rates of under-diagnosis and misdiagnosis in those who achieve access to them. This is not a picture of an efficient or cost-effective response to major causes not only of public ill-health and disability but also of an enormous societal financial burden from lost productivity . Public and professional educational initiatives are needed to redress these deficiencies, and these require political support. In this respect, China is little different from other countries [8–12, 15].
The World Health Organization
Traditional Chinese medicine
The international classification of headache disorders.
This study was supported by Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache, and by the Chinese Headache Society. The authors are grateful for the arduous work of the neurologists, including Hua Bai, Min Chen, Xueying Guo, De’an Jiang, Weiqing Li, Jie Lin, Guohe Liu, Ying Liu, Minfang Lou, Xinming Luo, Yunwen Luo, Haidong Lv, Sha Ma, Haiyun Mei, Xia Shen, Jinping Sun, Ping Sun, Feng Tan, Mingshan Tang, Weiwen Wang, Lianhong Xie, Xionggen Xie, Jiangtao Xu, Jinsheng Yang, Wei Yang, Changjiang Yao, Lin Yin, Tao Yu, Huiying Zhang, Jintao Zhang, Yusen Zhou, Jianguo Zhu, and Daliang Zou, and their teams who took part in performing this nationwide survey.
- Stovner L, Hagen K, Jensen R: The global burden of headache: a documentation of headache prevalence and disability worldwide. Cephalalgia 2007, 27: 193–210. 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01288.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, Lozano R, Michaud C, Ezzati M: Years lived with disability (YLD) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012, 380: 2163–2196. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61729-2PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Steiner TJ, Stovner LJ, Birbeck GL: Migraine: the 7 th disabler. Cephalagia 2013, 33: 289–290. 10.1177/0333102412473843View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Roh JK, Kim JS, Ahn YO: Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of migraine and tension-type headache in Korea. Headache 1998, 38: 356–365. 10.1046/j.1526-4610.1998.3805356.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wang SJ: Epidemiology of migraine and other types of headache in Asia. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2003, 3: 104–108. 10.1007/s11910-003-0060-7PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Celentano DD, Reed ML: Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States. Relation to age, income, race, and other sociodemographic factors. JAMA 1992, 267: 64–69. 10.1001/jama.1992.03480010072027PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yu S, Liu R, Zhao G, Yang X, Qiao X, Feng J, Fang Y, Cao X, He M, Steiner T: The prevalence and burden of primary headaches in China: A population-based door-to-door survey. Headache 2012, 52: 582–591. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2011.02061.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Simon D: Medical consultation for migraine: results from the American Migraine Study. Headache 1998, 38: 87–96. 10.1046/j.1526-4610.1998.3802087.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Stang PE, Von Korff M: The diagnosis of headache in primary care: factors in the agreement of clinical and standardized diagnoses. Headache 1994, 34: 138–142. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.1994.hed3403138.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Richard A, Massiou H, Herrmann MA: Frequency and profile of migraine patients seen by general practitioners. Semin Hosp Paris 1999, 75: 440–446.Google Scholar
- Lipton RB, Amatniek JC, Ferrari MD, Gross M: Identifying and removing barriers to care. Neurology 1994,44(Suppl 4):63–68.Google Scholar
- Lipton RB, Diamond S, Reed M, Diamond ML, Stewart WF: Migraine diagnosis and treatment: results from the American Migraine Study II. Headache 2001, 41: 638–645. 10.1046/j.1526-4610.2001.041007638.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lipton RB, Stewart WF: Acute migraine therapy: do doctors understand what migraine patients want from therapy? Headache 1999,39(Suppl 2):20–26.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Steiner TJ: Lifting the burden: The global campaign against headache. Lancet Neurology 2004, 3: 204–205. 10.1016/S1474-4422(04)00703-3PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- World Health Organization and Lifting The Burden: Atlas of headache disorders and resources in the world 2011. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.Google Scholar
- American Association for the Study of Headache and International Headache Society: Consensus statement on improving migraine management. Headache 1998, 38: 736.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lemeshow S, Tserkovnyi AG, Tulloch JL: A computer simulation of the EPI survey strategy. Int J Epidemiol 1985, 14: 473–481. 10.1093/ije/14.3.473PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yu SY, Cao XT, Zhao G: The burden of headache in China: validation of diagnostic questionnaire for a population-based survey. J Headache Pain 2011, 12: 141–146. 10.1007/s10194-011-0336-2PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- World Health Organization Western Pacific Region, International Association for the Study of Obesity and International Obesity Task Force: The Asia-Pacific perspective: redefining obesity and its treatment. Sydney: Health Communications Australia Pty Limited; 2000.Google Scholar
- Steiner TJ: The HALT and HART indices. J Headache Pain 2007,8(Suppl 1):S22-S25.Google Scholar
- Micieli G: Suffering in silence. In Migraine: a brighter future. Edited by: Edmeads J. Worthing: Cambridge Medical Publications; 1993:1–7.Google Scholar
- Edmeads J, Findlay H, Tugwell P, Pryse-Phyllips W, Nelson RF, Murray TJ: Impact of migraine and tension-type headache on life-style, consulting behavior, and medication use: a Canadian population survey. Can J Neurol Sci 1993, 20: 131–137.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Di Piero V, Altieri M, Conserva G, Petolicchio B, Di Clemente L, Hettiarachchi J: General Practitioners' Co-operative" of the Casilino district of Rome. The effects of a sensitisation campaign on unrecognised migraine: the Casilino study. J Headache Pain 2007, 8: 205–208. 10.1007/s10194-007-0395-6PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lipton RB, Scher AI, Kolodner K, Liberman J, Steiner TJ, Stewart WF: Migraine in the United States: epidemiology and patterns of health care use. Neurology 2002, 58: 885–894. 10.1212/WNL.58.6.885PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lipton RB, Scher AI, Steiner TJ: Patterns of health care utilization for migraine in England and in the United States. Neurology 2003, 60: 441–448. 10.1212/WNL.60.3.441PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rasmussen BK, Jensen R, Olesen J: Impact of headache on sickness absence and utilization of medical services: a Danish population study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1992, 46: 443–446. 10.1136/jech.46.4.443PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dahlöf C, Linde M: One-year prevalence of migraine in Sweden: a population-based study in adults. Cephalalgia 2001, 21: 664–671. 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2001.00218.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Takeshima T, Ishizaki K, Fukuhara Y: Population-based door-to-door survey of migraine in Japan: the Daisen study. Headache 2004, 44: 8–19. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2004.04004.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lampl C, Buzath A, Baumhackl U, Klingler D: One-year prevalence of migraine in Austria: a nation-wide survey. Cephalalgia 2003, 23: 280–286. 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2003.00509.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Radtke A, Neuhauser H: Prevalence and burden of headache and migraine in Germany. Headache 2009, 49: 79–89. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2008.01263.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Morillo LE, Alarcon F, Aranaga N: Prevalence of migraine in Latin America. Headache 2005, 45: 106–117. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05024.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Holmes W, Laughey W, MacGregor AE: Headache consultation and referral patterns in one UK general practice. Cephalalgia 1999, 19: 328–329.Google Scholar
- Van Roijen L, Essink-Bot ML, Koopmanschap MA, Michel BC, Rutten FF: Societal perspective on the burden of migraine in the Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics 1995, 7: 170–179. 10.2165/00019053-199507020-00008PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Steiner TJ, Antonaci F, Jensen R, Lainez JMA, Lanteri-Minet M, Valade D, on behalf of the European Headache Federation and Lifting The Burden: Recommendations for headache service organisation and delivery in Europe. J Headache Pain 2011, 12: 419–426. 10.1007/s10194-011-0320-xPubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Steiner TJ, Paemeleire K, Jensen R, Valade D, Savi L, Lainez MJA, on behalf of the European Headache Federation and Lifting The Burden: European principles of management of common headache disorders in primary care. J Headache Pain 2007,8(Suppl 1):S3-S21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Headache Classification Subcommittee of the International Headache Society: The International Classification of Headache Disorders: 2nd edition. Cephalalgia 2004,24(Suppl 1):9–160.Google Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.