Samuel Stebbins
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Samuel Stebbins has a total of 21 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
Charles J. Vukotich
Center for Public Health Practice, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
2 shared publicationsCharles Rinaldo
2 shared publicationsDerek A. T. Cummings
2 shared publicationsJames H. Stark
2 shared publicationsKiren Mitruka
2 shared publications- Charles J. Vukotich
School of Medicine Division of General Internal Medicine University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh PA United States of America
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 1 November 2011
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal
- Vol. 30 (11) , 921-926
Reduction in the Incidence of Influenza A But Not Influenza B Associated With Use of Hand Sanitizer and Cough Hygiene in Schools
Background: Laboratory-based evidence is lacking regarding the efficacy of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as alcohol-based hand sanitizer and respiratory hygiene to reduce the spread of influenza. Methods: The Pittsburgh Influenza Prevention Project was a cluster-randomized trial conducted in 10 elementary schools in Pittsburgh, PA, during the 2007 to 2008 influenza season. Children in 5 intervention schools received training in hand and respiratory hygiene, and were provided and encouraged to use hand sanitizer regularly. Children in 5 schools acted as controls. Children with influenza-like illness were tested for influenza A and B by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Results: A total of 3360 children participated in this study. Using reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, 54 cases of influenza A and 50 cases of influenza B were detected. We found no significant effect of the intervention on the primary study outcome of all laboratory-confirmed influenza cases (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54, 1.23). However, we did find statistically significant differences in protocol-specified ancillary outcomes. Children in intervention schools had significantly fewer laboratory-confirmed influenza A infections than children in control schools, with an adjusted IRR of 0.48 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.87). Total absent episodes were also significantly lower among the intervention group than among the control group; adjusted IRR 0.74 (95% CI: 0.56, 0.97). Conclusions: NPIs (respiratory hygiene education and the regular use of hand sanitizer) did not reduce total laboratory-confirmed influenza. However, the interventions did reduce school total absence episodes by 26% and laboratory-confirmed influenza A infections by 52%. Our results suggest that NPIs can be an important adjunct to influenza vaccination programs to reduce the number of influenza A infections among children.
- 1 November 2011
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal
- Vol. 30 (11) , 921-926
Reduction in the Incidence of Influenza A But Not Influenza B Associated With Use of Hand Sanitizer and Cough Hygiene in Schools
Background: Laboratory-based evidence is lacking regarding the efficacy of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as alcohol-based hand sanitizer and respiratory hygiene to reduce the spread of influenza. Methods: The Pittsburgh Influenza Prevention Project was a cluster-randomized trial conducted in 10 elementary schools in Pittsburgh, PA, during the 2007 to 2008 influenza season. Children in 5 intervention schools received training in hand and respiratory hygiene, and were provided and encouraged to use hand sanitizer regularly. Children in 5 schools acted as controls. Children with influenza-like illness were tested for influenza A and B by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Results: A total of 3360 children participated in this study. Using reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, 54 cases of influenza A and 50 cases of influenza B were detected. We found no significant effect of the intervention on the primary study outcome of all laboratory-confirmed influenza cases (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54, 1.23). However, we did find statistically significant differences in protocol-specified ancillary outcomes. Children in intervention schools had significantly fewer laboratory-confirmed influenza A infections than children in control schools, with an adjusted IRR of 0.48 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.87). Total absent episodes were also significantly lower among the intervention group than among the control group; adjusted IRR 0.74 (95% CI: 0.56, 0.97). Conclusions: NPIs (respiratory hygiene education and the regular use of hand sanitizer) did not reduce total laboratory-confirmed influenza. However, the interventions did reduce school total absence episodes by 26% and laboratory-confirmed influenza A infections by 52%. Our results suggest that NPIs can be an important adjunct to influenza vaccination programs to reduce the number of influenza A infections among children.
- 31 October 2011
- Published by Elsevier in American Journal of Preventive Medicine
- Vol. 41 (4) , S237-S241
Public Health Area of Concentration: A Model for Integration Into Medical School Curricula
- 31 October 2011
- Published by Elsevier in American Journal of Preventive Medicine
- Vol. 41 (4) , S237-S241
Public Health Area of Concentration: A Model for Integration Into Medical School Curricula
- Open Access
- 4 January 2011
- Published by PAGEPress Publications in Medical Education Development
- Vol. 1 (1) , 3
An innovative approach for training medical students for the real world of public health
Although proposals for more public health education go back to 1855, the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) landmark report, The Future of Public Health (1988) set the modern stage for reform of medical student education regarding public health. The momentum to improve and increase public health education has grown over the last several decades. The authors present the design of a unique public health clerkship for third and fourth year medical students, the Public Health Field Practicum. Students spend four weeks in an integrated program of public/environmental health activities, coupled with weekly didactic and feedback sessions with the course directors. Ten students have completed the practicum since its inception in March 2007. Significant increases in knowledge, desire to include public health in their medical career, and satisfaction are documented. Students gained substantial insight into public health and how it functions in the real world. This training requires a partnership between schools of public health and medicine and local/state health departments. Medical schools should develop these relationships to provide experiential public health opportunities for their students.
- 4 January 2011
- Published by PAGEPress Publications in Medical Education Development
- Vol. 1 (1) , 3
Open AccessAn innovative approach for training medical students for the real world of public health
Although proposals for more public health education go back to 1855, the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) landmark report, The Future of Public Health (1988) set the modern stage for reform of medical student education regarding public health. The momentum to improve and increase public health education has grown over the last several decades. The authors present the design of a unique public health clerkship for third and fourth year medical students, the Public Health Field Practicum. Students spend four weeks in an integrated program of public/environmental health activities, coupled with weekly didactic and feedback sessions with the course directors. Ten students have completed the practicum since its inception in March 2007. Significant increases in knowledge, desire to include public health in their medical career, and satisfaction are documented. Students gained substantial insight into public health and how it functions in the real world. This training requires a partnership between schools of public health and medicine and local/state health departments. Medical schools should develop these relationships to provide experiential public health opportunities for their students.
- Open Access
- 1 October 2010
- Published by Wiley in Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses
- Vol. 5 (2) , 104-109
Sensitivity and specificity of rapid influenza testing of children in a community setting1
Please cite this paper as: Stebbins et al. (2011) Sensitivity and specificity of rapid influenza testing of children in a community setting. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 5(2), 104–109.Introduction Rapid influenza testing (RFT) allows for a rapid point‐of‐care diagnosis of influenza. The Quidel QuickVue® Influenza A+B test (QuickVue) has a reported manufacturer’s sensitivity and specificity of 73% and 96%, respectively, with nasal swabs. However, investigators have shown sensitivities ranging from 22% to 77% in community settings.Methods The QuickVue rapid influenza test was evaluated in a population of elementary (K‐5) school children, using testing in the home, as part of the Pittsburgh Influenza Prevention Project during the 2007–2008 influenza season. The QuickVue test was performed with nasal swab in full accordance with package instructions and compared with the results of nasal swab semi‐quantitative RT‐PCR.Results Sensitivity of the QuickVue was found to be 27% in this sample. There was no statistically valid correlation between the semi‐quantitative PCR result and the QuickVue result.Conclusions This study is consistent with the low sensitivity of the QuickVue test also reported by others. Viral load, technique, and the use of nasal swabs were examined as contributing factors but were not found to be explanations for this result. Community testing includes patients who are on the lower spectrum of illness which would not be the case in hospital or clinic samples. This suggests that RFT is less sensitive for patients at the lower spectrum of illness, with less severe disease.
- 1 October 2010
- Published by Wiley in Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses
- Vol. 5 (2) , 104-109
Open AccessSensitivity and specificity of rapid influenza testing of children in a community setting1
Please cite this paper as: Stebbins et al. (2011) Sensitivity and specificity of rapid influenza testing of children in a community setting. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 5(2), 104–109.Introduction Rapid influenza testing (RFT) allows for a rapid point‐of‐care diagnosis of influenza. The Quidel QuickVue® Influenza A+B test (QuickVue) has a reported manufacturer’s sensitivity and specificity of 73% and 96%, respectively, with nasal swabs. However, investigators have shown sensitivities ranging from 22% to 77% in community settings.Methods The QuickVue rapid influenza test was evaluated in a population of elementary (K‐5) school children, using testing in the home, as part of the Pittsburgh Influenza Prevention Project during the 2007–2008 influenza season. The QuickVue test was performed with nasal swab in full accordance with package instructions and compared with the results of nasal swab semi‐quantitative RT‐PCR.Results Sensitivity of the QuickVue was found to be 27% in this sample. There was no statistically valid correlation between the semi‐quantitative PCR result and the QuickVue result.Conclusions This study is consistent with the low sensitivity of the QuickVue test also reported by others. Viral load, technique, and the use of nasal swabs were examined as contributing factors but were not found to be explanations for this result. Community testing includes patients who are on the lower spectrum of illness which would not be the case in hospital or clinic samples. This suggests that RFT is less sensitive for patients at the lower spectrum of illness, with less severe disease.
- 1 March 2009
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Journal of Public Health Management & Practice
- Vol. 15 (2) , 112-117
Using Nonpharmaceutical Interventions to Prevent Influenza Transmission in Elementary School Children
Schools act as "amplifying sites" for the spread of infectious diseases, outbreaks, and pandemics. This project assessed which nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are most acceptable to parents and teachers of school children in grades K-5 to K-8 in Pittsburgh public schools. During the spring of 2007, the Pittsburgh Influenza Prevention Project surveyed 134 teachers and 151 parents representing nine elementary schools regarding attitudes toward NPIs and their usage by adults and school children during seasonal influenza outbreaks. General etiquette practices such as covering coughs, handwashing, and using hand sanitizer were highly acceptable to both groups, while masks and gloves were not. The success of an NPI or a set of NPIs depends on both its efficacy and the feasibility of implementing it with relevant populations. If masks, gloves, and other more intrusive NPIs are to be used in community settings during a severe influenza season or pandemic, it is clear that there is significant preparatory work needed to increase acceptability on the part of the adults. Without such acceptance, it is highly unlikely that children and their supervising adults will participate.
- 1 March 2009
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Journal of Public Health Management & Practice
- Vol. 15 (2) , 112-117
Using Nonpharmaceutical Interventions to Prevent Influenza Transmission in Elementary School Children
Schools act as "amplifying sites" for the spread of infectious diseases, outbreaks, and pandemics. This project assessed which nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are most acceptable to parents and teachers of school children in grades K-5 to K-8 in Pittsburgh public schools. During the spring of 2007, the Pittsburgh Influenza Prevention Project surveyed 134 teachers and 151 parents representing nine elementary schools regarding attitudes toward NPIs and their usage by adults and school children during seasonal influenza outbreaks. General etiquette practices such as covering coughs, handwashing, and using hand sanitizer were highly acceptable to both groups, while masks and gloves were not. The success of an NPI or a set of NPIs depends on both its efficacy and the feasibility of implementing it with relevant populations. If masks, gloves, and other more intrusive NPIs are to be used in community settings during a severe influenza season or pandemic, it is clear that there is significant preparatory work needed to increase acceptability on the part of the adults. Without such acceptance, it is highly unlikely that children and their supervising adults will participate.