Joanne McPeake , Theodore J. Iwashyna , Pamela MacTavish , Helen Devine , Phil Henderson , Tara Quasim , Martin Shaw
{"title":"Could an integrated model of health and social care after critical illness reduce socioeconomic disparities in outcomes? A Bayesian analysis","authors":"Joanne McPeake , Theodore J. Iwashyna , Pamela MacTavish , Helen Devine , Phil Henderson , Tara Quasim , Martin Shaw","doi":"10.1016/j.bjao.2024.100259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>There is limited evidence to understand what impact, if any, recovery services might have for patients across the socioeconomic spectrum after critical illness. We analysed data from a multicentre critical care recovery programme to understand the impact of this programme across the socioeconomic spectrum.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The setting for this pre-planned secondary analysis was a critical care rehabilitation programme—Intensive Care Syndrome: Promoting Independence and Return to Employment. Data were collected from five hospital sites running this programme. We utilised a Bayesian approach to analysis and explore any possible effect of the InS:PIRE intervention on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) across the socioeconomic gradient. A Bayesian quantile, non-linear mixed effects regression model, using a compound symmetry covariance structure, accounting for multiple timepoints was utilised. The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) was used to measure socioeconomic status and HRQoL was measured using the EQ-5D-5L.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In the initial baseline cohort of 182 patients, 55% of patients were male, the median age was 58 yr (inter-quartile range: 50–66 yr) and 129 (79%) patients had two or more comorbidities at ICU admission. Using the neutral prior, there was an overall probability of intervention benefit of 100% (β=0.71, 95% credible interval: 0.34–1.09) over 12 months to those in the SIMD≤3 cohort, and an 98.6% (β=−1.38, 95% credible interval: −2.62 to −0.16) probability of greater benefit (i.e. a steeper increase in improvement) at 12 months in the SIMD≤3 <em>vs</em> SIMD≥4 cohort in the EQ-visual analogue scale.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Using multicentre data, this re-analysis suggests, but does not prove, that an integrated health and social care intervention is likely to improve outcomes across the socioeconomic gradient after critical illness, with a potentially greater benefit for those from deprived communities. Future research designed to prospectively analyse how critical care recovery programmes could potentially improve outcomes across the socioeconomic gradient is warranted.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72418,"journal":{"name":"BJA open","volume":"9 ","pages":"Article 100259"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772609624000030/pdfft?md5=3fe739ce0d593b53f0fa186576a567a2&pid=1-s2.0-S2772609624000030-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJA open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772609624000030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
There is limited evidence to understand what impact, if any, recovery services might have for patients across the socioeconomic spectrum after critical illness. We analysed data from a multicentre critical care recovery programme to understand the impact of this programme across the socioeconomic spectrum.
Methods
The setting for this pre-planned secondary analysis was a critical care rehabilitation programme—Intensive Care Syndrome: Promoting Independence and Return to Employment. Data were collected from five hospital sites running this programme. We utilised a Bayesian approach to analysis and explore any possible effect of the InS:PIRE intervention on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) across the socioeconomic gradient. A Bayesian quantile, non-linear mixed effects regression model, using a compound symmetry covariance structure, accounting for multiple timepoints was utilised. The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) was used to measure socioeconomic status and HRQoL was measured using the EQ-5D-5L.
Results
In the initial baseline cohort of 182 patients, 55% of patients were male, the median age was 58 yr (inter-quartile range: 50–66 yr) and 129 (79%) patients had two or more comorbidities at ICU admission. Using the neutral prior, there was an overall probability of intervention benefit of 100% (β=0.71, 95% credible interval: 0.34–1.09) over 12 months to those in the SIMD≤3 cohort, and an 98.6% (β=−1.38, 95% credible interval: −2.62 to −0.16) probability of greater benefit (i.e. a steeper increase in improvement) at 12 months in the SIMD≤3 vs SIMD≥4 cohort in the EQ-visual analogue scale.
Conclusions
Using multicentre data, this re-analysis suggests, but does not prove, that an integrated health and social care intervention is likely to improve outcomes across the socioeconomic gradient after critical illness, with a potentially greater benefit for those from deprived communities. Future research designed to prospectively analyse how critical care recovery programmes could potentially improve outcomes across the socioeconomic gradient is warranted.