Cited by 106Allergic Rhinitis and SensitizationAsthma and respiratory diseasesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Work Productivity in Primary Care Practice and a Comparison with Other Common Diseases: The Cross-sectional Study to Evaluate Work Productivity in Allergic Rhinitis Compared with Other Common Diseases (CAPRI) Study

Open access
Caballer, Belén de la Hoz, Rodríguez, Mercedes, Fraj, Juan, Cerecedo, Inmaculada, Antolín-Amérigo, Darío, Colas, Carlos·2012·American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy

Abstract

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a highly prevalent allergic disease and also counts among the 10 most frequent reasons for medical consultation. Its impact on quality of life (QoL) and work productivity has been established but comparisons with other diseases are rare in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of AR in health-related QoL (HRQoL) and work productivity in primary care patients, compared with other prevalent diseases such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus (DM) type II, and symptomatic depression. Methods: Six hundred sixteen patients were included in a multicenter cross-sectional observational study. A generic HRQoL questionnaire, 36-item Short Form, and a specific questionnaire, “Work Productivity and Activity Impairment” were handed out to measure QoL and work productivity impact of the diseases. To assess clinical severity with a comparable scale between diseases Clinical Global Impression (CGI) had been used. Results: Symptomatic depression was found to produce the greatest impairment on work productivity with a decrease of 59.5%, with significant differences compared with AR, hypertension, and DM type II (p < 0.05). Symptomatic depression was found to produce the highest negative impact on daily activities with a statistically significant reduction of 59.4% (p < 0.05) compared with AR (26.6% decrease), hypertension (8.8% decrease), and DM (16.7% decrease) patients. Differences between AR and DM or hypertension were also significant (p < 0.05). Restriction on daily activities for AR was 27.8%, which is significantly higher (p < 0.05) than hypertension (19.8% decrease) but not DM (25.7% decrease). Depression had the highest impairment on daily activities (59.4%), compared with the remaining three groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion: AR impairs work productivity in a greater magnitude than hypertension and DM type II.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2500/ajra.2012.26.3799

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Presenteeism is very high in allergic rhinitis patients, surpassing that of other chronic diseases such as diabetes.

    “Presenteeism (loss of productivity while in the workplace) is very high in AR patients, surpassing that of other chronic diseases such as diabetes [117].”

    From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [117]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [20]20. Guy W. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Mental Health, US Dept Health, Education and Welfare publication (ADM) 76-338; pp. 218-222, 1976.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caballer, B. D. L. H., Rodríguez, M., Fraj, J., Cerecedo, I., Antolín-Amérigo, D., & Colas, C.
Affiliations
  • Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (ES)
  • Hospital Universitario Príncipe de Asturias (ES)
  • Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Aragón (ES)
  • Hospital Universitario del Sureste (ES)
  • Department of Allergy, Hospital Universitario Príncipe de Asturias, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain
  • Department of Allergy, Hospital Clínico-Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Aragón, Zaragoza, Spain
Venue
American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy
Published
2012-09
Volume
26
Issue
5
Pages
390-394
ISSN
  • 1945-8924 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-8932
OpenAlex
W2314964358
Cited by
106
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Immunology and Allergy › Allergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
allergic rhinitis, labor productivity, health-related quality of life, activity impairment, depression, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, primary care patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depression, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Efficiency, Female, Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial, Work, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review