PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Sheryl L Szeinbach

Publications and source records attributed to Sheryl L Szeinbach.

7 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Influence of patient care provider on patient health outcomes in allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing and managing the symptoms of allergic rhinitis are largely the responsibility of family physicians and allergists, but some patients choose self-management. However, few data are available to determine how the choice of care relates to measures of patient outcomes, such as the ability to perform activities, quality of life, and productivity. OBJECTIVE: To examine and compare patients' ability to perform activities, quality of life, productivity, and symptoms according to care provider: family physician, allergist, or self-management. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and mailed to 2,065 patients enrolled in a 500,000-member managed care organization. Patients were identified by diagnostic codes for allergic rhinitis as determined from a retrospective examination of medical and prescription claims records between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2000. RESULTS: Chi-squared Tests revealed statistically significant differences for symptoms, family history, testing, immunotherapy, and test value among patient care providers. Multivariate analysis of variance revealed statistically significant differences for activities, symptoms, and quality of life among patient care providers. Findings support the use of diagnostic testing to improve patient outcomes. Symptoms were statistically significantly associated with measures of productivity. CONCLUSIONS: Patient outcomes vary with respect to patient care group. It is imperative that patients suspected of having allergic rhinitis undergo appropriate evaluation and testing. Outcomes can be optimized if allergists and family physicians have access to appropriate diagnostic tools, such as skin testing and serologic tests for specific IgE antibodies.

Female↗
PubMed2004

Preference for insulin delivery systems among current insulin users and nonusers.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether preferences for the vial and syringe (VS) or the insulin injection pen device (IIPD) differ between current insulin users and nonusers. Additional benefits in treatment might be realized if preference were considered when discussing insulin use with patients initiating or changing insulin treatment. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine respondent preferences for the VS and the IIPD between current insulin users and nonusers. METHODS: US residents with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus who responded to a year-2001 mail survey completed a 19-item self-administered questionnaire designed to assess respondents' expectations of attributes related to the VS and IIPD. Items were analyzed on a 5-point Likert-type scale with higher scores indicating greater agreement that attributes met expectations. Composite scores for ease of use, activity interference, and social acceptability were used to further examine differences between insulin users and nonusers regarding their preferences for the VS or IIPD. Observed differences in preferences were evaluated statistically using the chi-square test, paired Student t test, and regression analysis. RESULTS: Questionnaires were received from 302 respondents, producing an adjusted response rate of 20.8%. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 83 years (mean [SD], 52.4 [13.2] years), with 62% reporting annual income above 25,000 US dollars. Of the 242 usable responses, 99 respondents were insulin users and 143 were not. Statistical evaluation using analysis of variance revealed significant regression coefficients (P < or = 0.001) for both insulin users and nonusers for each of the 3 dimensions (ease of use, activity interference, and social acceptability with respect to preference). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this survey analysis, overall preference for the IIPD appeared to be higher compared with the VS among both insulin users and nonusers. Social acceptability was the strongest predictor of preference for the IIPD. For current insulin users, social acceptability and ease of use were significant predictors of preference for the VS. For insulin nonusers, these results suggested that patient discussions about VS should emphasize activity interference and ease of use.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Development of an instrument to assess expectations of and preference for an insulin injection pen compared with the vial and syringe.

BACKGROUND: Before using a product, patients form expectations regarding the extent of a product's desirable attributes. These expectations can be used to understand their preference and anticipate potential satisfaction with the product. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to produce a valid and reliable data collection instrument (the Insulin Injection Preference questionnaire [IIP-q]) to measure expectations of and preference for the insulin injection pen compared with the vial and syringe. METHODS: This study was initiated at the University of Mississippi (University, Mississippi). The IIP-q was developed to determine the extent to which respondents' prepurchase expectations of a product's attributes relate to preference for an insulin injection pen compared with the vial and syringe. Instrument development began with item generation related to product attributes important to patients who inject insulin. Items originated from an extensive search of the peer-reviewed Internet-based literature, marketing reports, clinical studies, and existing instruments. Content validity also was assessed using expert panel and focus group review. The resultant instrument (the IIP-q) was mailed to 1200 patients known to have type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus who either did or did not use insulin. Subscales were identified through exploratory factor analysis. Reliability and validity were assessed using Cronbach alpha for subscale items. Product-moment correlations between subscale dimensions and 2 global measures of preference were used to test the relationship between attribute expectations and preference. RESULTS: Seventeen of the questionnaires were returned as undeliverable, leaving 1183 in the sample population. Questionnaires were received from 302 individuals, 55 of whom failed to complete > or = 85% of the items and thus were not included in the final analysis. Of the 247 respondents (135 women, 112 men; mean [SD] age, 52.4 [13.2] years (range, 18-83 years]), 99 (40.1%) were current insulin users and 143 (57.9%) were not using insulin. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a 13-item solution (Cronbach alpha = 0.92), accounting for 73.6% of the total explained variance. Ease of use, activity interference, and social acceptability emerged as expectation subscales from exploratory factor analysis. Cronbach alpha for items comprising the subscales ranged from 0.82 to 0.92. The 3 subscales were significantly correlated with patient preference (ease of use, r = 0.520, P < 0.001; activity interference, r = 0.570, p < 0.001; social acceptability, r = 0.602, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study provide support for the IIP-q as a reliable and valid instrument to assess patient expectations of product attributes and preference. This instrument can be modified for use in clinical trials to determine the role of patient expectations and preference in their judgments regarding satisfaction with insulin delivery devices.

Cross-Sectional Studies↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Identification of allergic disease among users of antihistamines.

OBJECTIVE: Patients exhibit a multitude of symptoms that may or may not be allergy related. In this study, we examined the consistency between results obtained by a multiallergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) test and frequent use (3 months or more) of prescribed antihistamines. METHODS: A retrospective examination of 1-year prescription claims records from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000, for 4,643 patients enrolled in a 115,000-member managed care organization who received 1 or more prescriptions for an oral antihistamine (loratadine, fexofenadine, or cetirizine). RESULTS: A total of 1,343 health plan enrollees who received an oral antihistamine prescription were continuously enrolled during the year 2000 and diagnosed with allergic rhinitis. Of these patients, 246 (18%) consented to a multiallergen- specific IgE test, and 159 patients (64.6%) had a negative IgE test result. A total of 163 patients were classified as frequent antihistamine users (3 or more antihistamine prescriptions), and 101 (62.0%) of these patients had negative test results. Our study demonstrated no relation between prescribed antihistamine use and patient sensitization status. CONCLUSIONS: Only 35.4% of the patients who used an oral antihistamine and were diagnosed with an allergy tested positive to the multiallergen-specific IgE test, and only 38% of the patients with records of frequent antihistamine use and who were diagnosed as allergic tested positive to the multiallergen-specific IgE test. Apparently, there are patients taking medications prescribed for allergic rhinitis who are, in fact, not allergic, which is both wasteful economically and not indicated medically. Additional evaluation may be advisable to support the clinical diagnosis of allergy for patients presenting with allergy-like symptoms who use antihistamines frequently.

Adult↗