Literature DB >> 35511170

Evaluating Distance Bias in Chronic Rhinosinusitis Outcomes.

Amarbir S Gill1, Daniel M Beswick2, Jess C Mace3, Dennis Menjivar1, Shaelene Ashby1, Ryan A Rimmer4, Vijay R Ramakrishnan5, Zachary M Soler6, Jeremiah A Alt1.   

Abstract

Importance: The distance traveled by patients for medical care is associated with patient outcomes (ie, distance bias) and is a limitation in outcomes research. However, to date, distance bias has not been examined in rhinologic studies. Objective: To evaluate the association of distance traveled by a cohort of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with baseline disease severity and treatment outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 505 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis were prospectively enrolled in a multi-institutional, cross-sectional study in academic tertiary care centers between April 2011 and January 2020. Participants self-selected continued appropriate medical therapy or endoscopic sinus surgery. The 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 6-D (SF-6D) health utility value scores were recorded at enrollment and follow-up. Data on the distances traveled by patients to the medical centers, based on residence zip codes, and medical comorbid conditions were collected. Exposures: Distance traveled by patient to obtain rhinologic care. Main Outcomes and Measures: SNOT-22 and SF-6D scores. Scores for SNOT-22 range from 0 to 110; and for SF-6D, from 0.0 to 1.0. Higher SNOT-22 total scores indicate worse overall symptom severity. Higher SF-6D scores indicate better overall health utility; 1.0 represents perfect health and 0.0 represents death.
Results: The median age for the 505 participants was 56.0 years (IQR, 41.0-64.0 years), 261 were men (51.7%), 457 were White (90.5%), and 13 were Hispanic or Latino (2.6%). These categories were collected according to criteria described and required by the National Institutes of Health and therefore do not equal the entire cohort. Patients traveled a median distance of 31.6 miles (50.6 km) (IQR, 12.2-114.5 miles [19.5-183.2 km]). Baseline (r = 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00-0.18) and posttreatment (r = 0.01; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.10) SNOT-22 scores, as well as baseline (r = -0.12; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.04) and posttreatment (r = 0.07; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.16) SF-6D scores, were not associated with distance. There was no clinically meaningful correlation between distance traveled and mean comorbidity burden. Nevertheless, patients with a history of endoscopic sinus surgery were more likely to travel longer distances to obtain care (Cliff delta = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19-0.38). Conclusions and Relevance: Although this cross-sectional study found that some patients appear more willing to travel longer distances for chronic rhinosinusitis care, results suggest that distance traveled to academic tertiary care centers was not associated with disease severity, outcomes, or comorbidity burden. These findings argue for greater generalizability of study results across various cohorts independent of distance traveled to obtain rhinologic care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02720653.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35511170      PMCID: PMC9073660          DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2022.0268

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 2168-6181            Impact factor:   8.961


  33 in total

1.  Beyond the F test: Effect size confidence intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis.

Authors:  James H Steiger
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2004-06

Review 2.  The development of a comorbidity index with physical function as the outcome.

Authors:  Dianne L Groll; Teresa To; Claire Bombardier; James G Wright
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Authors:  Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 6.317

4.  Two-way referral bias: evidence from a clinical audit of lymphoma in a teaching hospital.

Authors:  O Paltiel; I Ronen; A Polliack; L Epstein
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Does Referral Bias Impact Outcomes of Surgery for Degenerative Mitral Valve Disease?

Authors:  Irsa S Hasan; Hartzell V Schaff; Richard C Daly; Katherine S King; John M Stulak; Kevin L Greason; Joseph A Dearani
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 4.330

6.  Quantifying Tertiary Referral Center Bias in Vestibular Schwannoma Research.

Authors:  Elias S Saba; John P Marinelli; Christine M Lohse; Michael J Link; Matthew L Carlson
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Distance Traveled to Head and Neck Cancer Provider: A Measure of Socioeconomic Status and Access.

Authors:  Sean T Massa; Adam P Liebendorfer; Jose P Zevallos; Angela L Mazul
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2019-12-03       Impact factor: 3.497

Review 8.  International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: rhinosinusitis 2021.

Authors:  Richard R Orlandi; Todd T Kingdom; Timothy L Smith; Benjamin Bleier; Adam DeConde; Amber U Luong; David M Poetker; Zachary Soler; Kevin C Welch; Sarah K Wise; Nithin Adappa; Jeremiah A Alt; Wilma Terezinha Anselmo-Lima; Claus Bachert; Fuad M Baroody; Pete S Batra; Manuel Bernal-Sprekelsen; Daniel Beswick; Neil Bhattacharyya; Rakesh K Chandra; Eugene H Chang; Alexander Chiu; Naweed Chowdhury; Martin J Citardi; Noam A Cohen; David B Conley; John DelGaudio; Martin Desrosiers; Richard Douglas; Jean Anderson Eloy; Wytske J Fokkens; Stacey T Gray; David A Gudis; Daniel L Hamilos; Joseph K Han; Richard Harvey; Peter Hellings; Eric H Holbrook; Claire Hopkins; Peter Hwang; Amin R Javer; Rong-San Jiang; David Kennedy; Robert Kern; Tanya Laidlaw; Devyani Lal; Andrew Lane; Heung-Man Lee; Jivianne T Lee; Joshua M Levy; Sandra Y Lin; Valerie Lund; Kevin C McMains; Ralph Metson; Joaquim Mullol; Robert Naclerio; Gretchen Oakley; Nobuyoshi Otori; James N Palmer; Sanjay R Parikh; Desiderio Passali; Zara Patel; Anju Peters; Carl Philpott; Alkis J Psaltis; Vijay R Ramakrishnan; Murugappan Ramanathan; Hwan-Jung Roh; Luke Rudmik; Raymond Sacks; Rodney J Schlosser; Ahmad R Sedaghat; Brent A Senior; Raj Sindwani; Kristine Smith; Kornkiat Snidvongs; Michael Stewart; Jeffrey D Suh; Bruce K Tan; Justin H Turner; Cornelis M van Drunen; Richard Voegels; De Yun Wang; Bradford A Woodworth; Peter-John Wormald; Erin D Wright; Carol Yan; Luo Zhang; Bing Zhou
Journal:  Int Forum Allergy Rhinol       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 5.426

Review 9.  Are differences in travel time or distance to healthcare for adults in global north countries associated with an impact on health outcomes? A systematic review.

Authors:  Charlotte Kelly; Claire Hulme; Tracey Farragher; Graham Clarke
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  The Effect of Travel Distance on Outcomes for Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty at a High-Volume Center.

Authors:  Tony S Shen; Patawut Bovonratwet; Rachelle Morgenstern; Aaron Z Chen; Edwin P Su
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2020-11-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.