BSBetsy Sleath

Betsy Sleath

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article

Previous Organizations / Institutes

The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years


Betsy Sleath has a total of 267 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:

  • Delesha Miller Carpenter

    Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

    33 shared publications
  • Gail Tudor

    Health Professions at Southern New Hampshire University, Manchester, NH, USA

    24 shared publications
  • Nacire Garcia

    Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    13 shared publications
  • Alan L. Robin

    Ophthalmology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Ophthalmology and International Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

    12 shared publications
  • Kelly W. Muir

    Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, USA

    12 shared publications
  • Charles Lee

    Alexor LLC, Morrisville, NC, USA

    10 shared publications

Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    Clinician Recommendations for Discussing Online Health Information With Adolescents: A Qualitative Study

    by Cambray Smith, Sarah Rebbeor, Melissa B. Gilkey, Betsy Sleath, Christopher M. Shea, Leah Frerichs, Bianca A. Allison

    Introduction/Objectives: Adolescents frequently encounter online health information (OHI). We aimed to synthesize clinician recommendations for engaging adolescents about OHI during clinical encounters. Methods: United States clinicians with expertise in adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH) participated in virtual semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using rapid qualitative methods to generate descriptive themes. Results: Twenty-four clinicians from all U.S. regions participated. Participants emphasized the importance of addressing OHI given its accessibility, ubiquity, broad topical relevance (eg, SRH, nutrition, vaccines), and variable health impacts (ie, positive and negative). Clinicians described 4 entry points for discussion: patient initiation, screening, topic-specific conversations, and resource provision. They suggested strategies to build digital literacy (eg, assessing content creator motivations) and health literacy (eg, contextualizing population risks without dismissing personal anecdotes). Communication approaches included acknowledging partial truths before providing medical context and avoiding blanket dismissal of online content. Clinicians advised against directly labeling patients’ claims as “misinformation,” recommending instead more neutral, patient-friendly language. Conclusions: As clinicians increasingly navigate OHI in practice, these expert recommendations can help support digital and health literacy while fostering trust and improving adolescent–clinician communication.


  • Open Access

    Co-creating and disseminating substance use and vaping educational videos, question prompt lists, and other resources in partnership with community organizations and youth in Western North Carolina

    by Betsy Sleath, Abena A. Adjei, Jeremy Lowery, Mckenna Knock, Bethany Beznos, Delesha M. Carpenter, Casey R. Tak, Kim James, Michelle Geiser, Nacire Garcia, et al.


  • Provider use of a participatory decision-making style with youth with ADHD and their caregivers and visit satisfaction

    by Betsy Sleath, Kathleen C. Thomas, Delesha M. Carpenter, Izabela E. Annis, Gail Tudor, Imelda Coyne, Nacire Garcia, Abena A. Adjei, Laurel K. Leslie

  • Vaccine patterns among older adults with Guillain–Barré syndrome and matched comparators, 2006–2019

    by Samantha R. Eiffert, Alan C. Kinlaw, Betsy L. Sleath, Carolyn T. Thorpe, Rebecca Traub, Sudha R. Raman, Til Stürmer

    Background: Some vaccines have a small risk of triggering Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS), an autoimmune disorder where nerve damage leads to paralysis. There is a CDC precaution for patients whose GBS was associated with an influenza or tetanus toxoid‐containing vaccine (GBS occurring within 42 days following vaccination). Methods: We described vaccine patterns before and after a GBS diagnosis with a matched cohort design in a 20% random sample of fee‐for‐service Medicare enrollees. We defined the index date as an ICD‐9‐CM or ICD‐10‐CM GBS diagnosis code in the primary position of an inpatient claim. We matched each GBS patient to five non‐GBS comparators on sex, exact age, racial and ethnic category, state of residence and the month of preventive health visits during baseline; used weighting to balance covariates; and measured frequency of vaccines received per 100 people during year before and after the index date using the weighted mean cumulative count (wMCC). Results: We identified 1567 patients with a GBS diagnosis with at least 1 year of prior continuous enrollment in Medicare A and B that matched to five comparators each. The wMCCs in the 1 year before the index date were similar for both groups, with a wMCC of 74 vaccines/100 people in the GBS group (95% CI 71, 77). Within 1 year after the index date, patients with GBS had received 26 vaccines/100 people (95% CI 23, 28), which was 41 fewer vaccines than matched non‐GBS comparators (95% CI −44, −38). Among GBS patients, 11% were diagnosed with GBS within 42 days after a vaccine. Conclusions: GBS diagnosis has a strong impact on reducing subsequent vaccination even though there is no warning or precaution about future vaccines for most patients diagnosed with GBS. These data suggest discordance between clinical practice and current vaccine recommendations.

  • Facilitators and Barriers to Shared Decision-Making Communication Between Latina Mothers and Pediatric Mental Healthcare Providers

    by Deshira D. Wallace, Kathryn L. Hale, Linda E. Guzman, Gabriela L. Stein, Mónica Pérez Jolles, Betsy L. Sleath, Kathleen C. Thomas

    This study assessed communication factors influencing shared decision-making (SDM) between language-congruent clinicians and Latina mothers of pediatric mental health patients. The sample comprised Latinx youth up to 22 years old who were enrolled in mental healthcare and attended mental health-related sessions with their parent. One hundred transcripts depicting mental health visits were coded using the Conversation Analysis framework. Coding included inductive coding that came from analyzing the structure, or orderliness, of the visits and content discussed that affects SDM. Thematic qualitative analysis revealed that facilitators to SDM included collaborative engagement, parents being active in tailoring session content, and integrating the preferences, roles, and next steps for treatment among all participants. Barriers included unskilled interpersonal interactions undermining rapport, off-topic conversations becoming the session's focus, poor time management, and irregularly integrating parent/patient preferences into the clinician's decisions regarding the child's treatment. Additionally, visit content, structure, tone, and interpersonal engagement were factors that variably facilitated or served as barriers to patient participation in SDM and were integral to collaborative, family-centered care. These findings delineated characteristics of pediatric mental health conversations and identified areas to strengthen communication between parents, patients, and clinicians to shift toward more effective SDM and improve patient outcomes among Latinx families.


  • A pre-visit video/question prompt list intervention to increase youth question-asking about attention deficit hyperactivity disorder during pediatric visits

    by Betsy Sleath, Bethany Beznos, Delesha Carpenter, Kathleen Thomas, Izabela Annis, Gail Tudor, Nacire Garcia, Abena Adjei, Arthur Anastopoulos, Laurel Leslie, et al.


  • African American patient-provider communication about glaucoma vision quality-of-life

    by Betsy Sleath, Bethany Beznos, Delesha M. Carpenter, Donald L. Budenz, Kelly W. Muir, Maria S. Romero, Charles Lee, Gail Tudor, Nacire Garcia, Alan L. Robin

    Background/objectives Little is known about African American patient-provider communication about glaucoma-related quality-of-life. The objectives of this study were to: (a) examine associations between patient socio-demographics and vision quality-of-life, (b) describe the extent to which eye care providers and patients discuss glaucoma-related quality-of-life, and (c) examine associations between patient and provider characteristics, whether the patient was in the intervention or usual care group, and whether the patient and provider discuss one or more glaucoma-related quality-of-life domains. Methods Adult African American patients with glaucoma who reported non-adherence to glaucoma medications were enrolled from three sites. Patients completed a vision quality-of-life VFQ-25 assessment. Patients were randomized into intervention and control groups with intervention group members receiving a glaucoma question prompt list and watching a video before a provider visit. Audio recordings from these visits were transcribed and assessed for glaucoma-related quality-of-life discussions. Results One hundred and eighty-nine patients were enrolled. Glaucoma-related quality-of-life was discussed during 12.3% of visits (N = 23). Patients initiated discussion 56.5% (N = 13) of the time and providers 43.5% (N = 10) of the time. Patients with worse health literacy (p < 0.001), more depressive symptoms (p < 0.05), and more severe glaucoma (p < 0.001) were significantly more likely to have worse vision-related quality-of-life. Glaucoma-related quality-of-life was significantly more likely to be discussed when African American patients saw African American providers (p < 0.05). Conclusion Patients and providers rarely discussed the patient’s glaucoma-related quality-of-life. The intervention did not significantly increase communication about glaucoma-related quality-of-life. Residency programs should consider enhancing training regarding discussing patients’ quality-of-life.


  • A Previsit Intervention’s Influence on Glaucoma Topics Discussed between Black Patients and Providers

    by Betsy Sleath, Delesha M. Carpenter, Donald L. Budenz, Kelly W. Muir, Maria S. Romero, Abena A. Adjei, Bethany Beznos, Gail Tudor, Nacire Garcia, Alan L. Robin


  • Provider use of a participatory decision-making style with African American patients with glaucoma

    by Betsy Sleath, Delesha M. Carpenter, Donald L. Budenz, Kelly W. Muir, Maria S. Romero, Gail Tudor, Nacire Garcia, Abena A. Adjei, Alan L. Robin


  • Open Access

    Provision of Patient Care Services and Goals for Expansion in Community and Ambulatory Care Pharmacies in Southeastern North Carolina

    by Michael Laskowitz, Jessica Roller, Haley Mun, Stefanie Ferreri, Bethany Beznos, Izabela Annis, Nacire Garcia, William Campbell, Betsy Sleath

    In February 2022, the North Carolina legislature expanded pharmacist dispensing authority without a prescription. We conducted a cross-sectional interview of currently licensed pharmacy managers of outpatient pharmacies located in five counties in southeastern North Carolina. Pharmacy managers were eligible to participate if their pharmacy was either a community pharmacy, clinic-based pharmacy, or outpatient health system pharmacy. Forty-four of 116 eligible pharmacy managers participated (38% response rate). The most common services offered by pharmacies included medication synchronization services (93.2%), on-site immunizations (90.9%), and refill reminders (88.6%). The least common services offered include INR screens (0%), A1c screens (7%), and ‘incident-to’ billing services associated with CPT codes: annual wellness visits (0%), chronic care management (0%), transitional care management (0%), and remote patient monitoring (2.4%). The services that pharmacy managers wanted to learn more about through continuing education included: oral/transdermal contraceptives (60.5%), administration of long-acting injectables (LAIs) (36.8%), and dispensing of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) (23.7%).