Sara Duffett

University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, United Kingdom

Are you Sara Duffett?

Claim your profile

Publications (11)77.5 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A cross-sectional survey was performed to evaluate the association between H. pylori and adult height. H. pylori infection was assessed using a 13C-urea breath test and height measured by a research nurse using a stadiometer in participants between the ages of 40-49 years. Height was measured in 2932/3682 participants that attended and were evaluable. H. pylori infected women were 1.4 cm shorter than uninfected women (95% confidence interval, CI = 0.7-2.1 cm) and this statistically significant difference persisted after adjusting for age, ethnicity, childhood and present socio-economic status (H. pylori positives 0.79 cm shorter; 95%CI: 0.05-1.52 cm). H. pylori positive men were 0.7 cm shorter than uninfected men but this did not reach statistical significance (95% CI: -0.1-1.5 cm). Although H. pylori infection is associated with reduced adult height in women, this maybe due to residual confounding.
    European Journal of Epidemiology 02/2005; 20(5):455-65. · 5.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The influence of adult socioeconomic status, co-habitation, gender, smoking, coffee and alcohol intake on risk of Helicobacter pylori infection is uncertain. Subjects between aged 40-49 years were randomly invited to attend their local primary care centre. Participants were interviewed by a researcher on smoking, coffee and alcohol intake, history of living with a partner, present and childhood socioeconomic conditions. Helicobacter pylori status was determined by 13C-urea breath test. In all, 32 929 subjects were invited, 8429 (26%) were eligible and 2327 (27.6%) were H. pylori positive. Helicobacter pylori infection was more common in men and this association remained after controlling for childhood and adult risk factors in a logistic regression model (odds ratio [OR] = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.03-1.29). Living with a partner was also an independent risk factor for infection (OR = 1.30; 95% CI: 1.01-1.67), particularly in partners of lower social class (social class IV and V-OR = 1.47; 95% CI: 1.19-1.81, compared with social class I and II). Helicobacter pylori infection was more common in lower social class groups (I and II-22% infected, III-29% infected, IV and V-38% infected) and there was a significant increase in risk of infection in manual workers compared with non-manual workers after controlling for other risk factors (OR = 1.18; 95% CI: 1.03-1.34). Alcohol and coffee intake were not independent risk factors for infection and smoking was only a risk factor in those smoking >35 cigarettes a day. Male gender, living with a partner and poor adult socioeconomic conditions are associated with increased risk of H. pylori infection.
    International Journal of Epidemiology 07/2002; 31(3):624-31. · 6.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Department of Health states that patients with suspected cancer should be seen within 2 weeks, and the Patients' Charter suggests that patients should not wait for more than 30 min in outpatients. Decisions such as these are often made with little assessment of patient preferences. We have elicited patient preferences for the optimal use of time in the outpatient clinic. Questionnaire survey eliciting preference between different clinic scenarios evaluated using discrete choice conjoint analysis. Patients attending a teaching hospital gastroenterology outpatient clinic. The relative importance of time spent on the waiting list, time waiting in the clinic, time spent with the specialist, and time waiting for investigation was assessed using a logit model. Patients placed a similar value on waiting for investigation and time spent on the waiting list. A clinic that had a 2-month waiting list but offered immediate investigations would therefore be more popular than a clinic that had a 2-week waiting list but whose investigations were deferred for 3 months. Patients would be prepared to spend an extra 30 min in the waiting room if they spent 1 month less on the waiting list or waiting for investigation. Time spent with a specialist is valued, and patients would be prepared to spend an extra 3 min waiting in the clinic for every extra minute spent with the doctor. The present Department of Health recommendations and the Patients' Charter are too simplistic and do not take into account patient preferences.
    European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 05/2002; 14(4):429-33. · 1.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Economic models have suggested that population Helicobacter pylori screening and treatment may be a cost-effective method of reducing mortality from gastric cancer. These models are conservative as they do not consider that the programme may reduce health service peptic ulcer and other dyspepsia costs. We have evaluated the economic impact of population H. pylori screening and treatment over 2 years in a randomized controlled trial and have incorporated the results into an economic model exploring the impact of H. pylori eradication on peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer. Subjects between the ages of 40 and 49 years were randomly invited to attend their local primary care centre. H. pylori status was evaluated by (13)C-urea breath test and infected individuals were randomized to receive omeprazole, 20 mg b.d., clarithromycin, 250 mg b.d., and tinidazole, 500 mg b.d., for 7 days or identical placebos. Economic data on health service costs for dyspepsia were obtained from a primary care note review for the 2 years following randomization. These data were incorporated into a Markov model comparing population H. pylori screening and treatment with no intervention. A total of 2329 of 8407 subjects were H. pylori positive: 1161 were randomized to receive eradication therapy and 1163 to receive placebo. The cost difference favoured the intervention group 2 years after randomization, but this did not reach statistical significance (11.42 ponds sterling per subject cost saving; 95% confidence interval, 30.04 ponds sterling to -7.19 pounds sterling; P=0.23). Analysis by gender suggested a statistically significant dyspepsia cost saving in men (27.17 ponds sterling per subject; 95% confidence interval, 50.01 pounds sterling to 4.32 pounds sterling; P=0.02), with no benefit in women (-4.46 per subject; 95% confidence interval, -33.85 pounds sterling to 24.93 pounds sterling). Modelling of these data suggested that population H. pylori screening and treatment for 1,000,000 45-year-olds would save over 6,000,000 pounds sterling and 1300 years of life. The programme would cost 14, 200 pounds sterling per life year saved if the health service dyspepsia cost savings were the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals and H. pylori eradication had only a 10% efficacy in reducing mortality from distal gastric cancer and peptic ulcer disease. Modelling suggests that population H. pylori screening and treatment are likely to be cost-effective and could be the first cost-neutral screening programme. This provides a further mandate for clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of population H. pylori screening and treatment in preventing mortality from gastric cancer and peptic ulcer disease.
    Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 04/2002; 16(3):559-68. · 4.55 Impact Factor
  • Gastroenterology 01/2001; 120(5). · 12.82 Impact Factor
  • Gastroenterology 01/2000; 118(4). · 12.82 Impact Factor
  • Gastroenterology 01/2000; 118(4). · 12.82 Impact Factor
  • Gastroenterology 01/2000; 118(4). · 12.82 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To examine whether screening and eradication of Helicobacter pylori by population-based invitation or opportunistic screening by general practitioners reduces costs to the National Health Service (NHS) of treating dyspepsia.
    International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 09/1999; 15(04):649 - 660. · 1.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine whether screening and eradication of Helicobacter pylori by population-based invitation or opportunistic screening by general practitioners reduces costs to the National Health Service (NHS) of treating dyspepsia. A limited dependent, variable, two-step regression analysis was used to explore the baseline annual health care costs of dyspepsia for men and women aged 40-49 enrolled in the Leeds H. pylori screening and eradication trial. Epidemiological and clinical questionnaires, general practitioner notes, and 13C urea breath test results were available for 4,754 individuals. After adjusting for covariates H. pylori was associated with a 6.7% increased probability of incurring gastrointestinal-related NHS costs (p < .0001) in the population aged 40-49. Additionally, H pylori increased average costs in those who seek medical care (p = .001). In consequence, H. pylori is associated with an average increased cost to the NHS of 0.30 Pound per year (95% CI: 0.17 Pound to 0.45 Pound) per adult aged 40-49. In those consulting for dyspepsia, the increased cost to the NHS was 1.04 Pounds per year (95% CI: 0.42 Pound to 1.75 Pounds) per patient. The cost of population screening and treatment would not be recovered in reduced dyspepsia costs in the lifetime of those screened. Assuming laboratory-based serology screening is used opportunistically in patients presenting with dyspepsia, it is estimated that costs would be recouped in 18 years. This observational data set suggests that the costs of screening and treatment in all individuals aged 40-49 or in those presenting in primary care with dyspeptic symptoms are unlikely to be attractive on the basis of cost savings alone.
    International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 02/1999; 15(4):649-60. · 1.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is currently no validated questionnaire that assesses both the presence and severity of dyspepsia. To develop the Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire (LDQ) as a measure of the presence and severity of dyspepsia, and to assess the validity, reliability and responsiveness of this instrument. Unselected patients attending either a hospital dyspepsia clinic or a general practice surgery were interviewed by a trained gastroenterologist or a general practitioner on the presence and severity of dyspepsia. This opinion was compared with the results of the nurse-administered LDQ. Test-retest reliability was assessed by the same research nurse re-administering the LDQ 4-7 days after the initial visit in a subgroup of hospital patients. In a further subgroup of patients one researcher interviewed the patients and a second researcher re-administered the LDQ within 30 min to evaluate inter-rater reliability. The responsiveness of the LDQ was measured by repeating it in patients with endoscopically proven peptic ulcer or oesophagitis 1 month after receiving appropriate therapy. The LDQ was administered to 99 general practice and 215 hospital patients. In the GP population 41/98 (42%) had dyspepsia according to the GP and the LDQ had a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI: 65-91%) and a specificity of 79% (95% CI: 66-89%). The weighted kappa statistic for the agreement between the LDQ and the clinician for the severity of dyspepsia was 0.58 in the GP population and 0.49 in hospital patients. The kappa statistic for test-retest reliability was 0.83 in 107 patients. The LDQ had excellent inter-rater reliability with a kappa statistic of 0.90 in 42 patients. The median LDQ score fell from 22.5 (range 9-36) to 4.5 (range 0-27) in 12 patients 1 month after receiving appropriate therapy (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P < 0.0001). The LDQ is a valid, reliable and responsive instrument for measuring the presence and severity of dyspepsia.
    Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 12/1998; 12(12):1257-62. · 4.55 Impact Factor