Victoria A Jordan1, Seth Cohen2, Scott Lunos3, Keith J Horvath4, Gretchen Sieger5, Stephanie Misono1. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2. Duke Voice Care Center, Division of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A. 3. Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Biostatistical Design and Analysis Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 4. School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 5. Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Best Practices Integrated Informatics Core, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Voice patients with voice disorders have a high prevalence of distress and mental health (MH) comorbidities, but it is unknown to what extent distress precedes or follows voice disorder diagnoses. Objectives were to compare 1) proportions of voice patients with MH diagnoses who received MH diagnoses first versus voice-related diagnoses first, 2) voice-related diagnoses and care utilization, and 3) time to specialty evaluation in each group. METHODS: Patients with voice and MH diagnoses were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions codes in a large health system data repository from January 2005 through July 2017. Sociodemographics, comorbidities, MH- and voice-related diagnoses, and voice-related care utilization were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariable regression modeling. RESULTS: Among the 11,419 patients with both voice and MH diagnoses, 63% (n = 7,251) received MH diagnoses prior to voice diagnoses, compared with 37% with a voice diagnosis first (P < 0.0001). The latter group received more specific voice-related diagnoses (e.g., laryngeal cancer [odds ratio (OR) 4.27], benign laryngeal neoplasm [OR 1.60]), and were more likely to ever see an otolaryngologist than those receiving MH diagnoses first (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Most patients with voice and MH diagnoses received a MH diagnosis first. Patients who receive MH diagnoses first appeared to have different voice-related healthcare compared to those who received voice diagnoses first. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 130:1243-1248, 2020.
OBJECTIVES: Voice patients with voice disorders have a high prevalence of distress and mental health (MH) comorbidities, but it is unknown to what extent distress precedes or follows voice disorder diagnoses. Objectives were to compare 1) proportions of voice patients with MH diagnoses who received MH diagnoses first versus voice-related diagnoses first, 2) voice-related diagnoses and care utilization, and 3) time to specialty evaluation in each group. METHODS:Patients with voice and MH diagnoses were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions codes in a large health system data repository from January 2005 through July 2017. Sociodemographics, comorbidities, MH- and voice-related diagnoses, and voice-related care utilization were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariable regression modeling. RESULTS: Among the 11,419 patients with both voice and MH diagnoses, 63% (n = 7,251) received MH diagnoses prior to voice diagnoses, compared with 37% with a voice diagnosis first (P < 0.0001). The latter group received more specific voice-related diagnoses (e.g., laryngeal cancer [odds ratio (OR) 4.27], benign laryngeal neoplasm [OR 1.60]), and were more likely to ever see an otolaryngologist than those receiving MH diagnoses first (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Most patients with voice and MH diagnoses received a MH diagnosis first. Patients who receive MH diagnoses first appeared to have different voice-related healthcare compared to those who received voice diagnoses first. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 130:1243-1248, 2020.
Authors: B C Spector; J L Netterville; C Billante; J Clary; L Reinisch; T L Smith Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Karen Barnett; Stewart W Mercer; Michael Norbury; Graham Watt; Sally Wyke; Bruce Guthrie Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 79.321