Geographic Variation in Inpatient Rehabilitation Outcomes After Traumatic Brain Injury.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2025-01-03 DOI:10.1097/HTR.0000000000001033
Nathan Darji, Bei Zhang, Richard Goldstein, Shirley L Shih, Mary Alexis Iaccarino, Jeffrey C Schneider, Ross Zafonte
{"title":"Geographic Variation in Inpatient Rehabilitation Outcomes After Traumatic Brain Injury.","authors":"Nathan Darji, Bei Zhang, Richard Goldstein, Shirley L Shih, Mary Alexis Iaccarino, Jeffrey C Schneider, Ross Zafonte","doi":"10.1097/HTR.0000000000001033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether regional variations exist in functional outcomes of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) admitted to inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) across the United States, while controlling for demographic and clinical variables.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) across 4 U.S. regions: West, Midwest, South, and East.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Adult patients with open or closed TBI (Rehabilitation Impairment Codes 2.21 or 2.22) discharged from an IRF between 2016 and 2019.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This is a retrospective analysis de-identified data from the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. The study compared total functional independence measure (FIM) scores and discharge dispositions across the 4 regions.</p><p><strong>Main measures: </strong>Primary outcomes were FIM scores at discharge, changes in FIM scores between admission and discharge, and community discharge rates, adjusted for demographic and clinical factors. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated to assess the clinical significance of regional differences on FIM scores. Prevalence ratios were used for discharge disposition outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regional differences were identified in functional outcomes for patients with TBI. The West had the highest community discharge rate (80.9%) compared to the East (70.5%). Discharge FIM scores were significantly lower in the Midwest and East compared to the South (-1.98 and - 2.31, respectively, P < .01), while the West showed no significant difference from the South (-0.78, P = .11). Effect sizes for FIM total scores were small across regions, with Cohen's d for West versus South at 0.017, Midwest versus South at 0.047, and East versus South at 0.047. Prevalence ratios for community discharge showed minor differences: West versus South at 1.010, Midwest versus South at 0.937, and East versus South at 0.918; all without statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Regional disparities in functional outcomes following inpatient rehabilitation for TBI were observed, particularly in community discharge rates and total FIM scores. However, based on the effect sizes and prevalence ratios, these differences may not be clinically meaningful and could not be fully explained by demographic and clinical factors. Further studies are needed to explore region-specific factors influencing rehabilitation efficacy to improve outcomes for patients with TBI nationwide.</p>","PeriodicalId":15901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000001033","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether regional variations exist in functional outcomes of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) admitted to inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) across the United States, while controlling for demographic and clinical variables.

Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) across 4 U.S. regions: West, Midwest, South, and East.

Participants: Adult patients with open or closed TBI (Rehabilitation Impairment Codes 2.21 or 2.22) discharged from an IRF between 2016 and 2019.

Design: This is a retrospective analysis de-identified data from the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. The study compared total functional independence measure (FIM) scores and discharge dispositions across the 4 regions.

Main measures: Primary outcomes were FIM scores at discharge, changes in FIM scores between admission and discharge, and community discharge rates, adjusted for demographic and clinical factors. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated to assess the clinical significance of regional differences on FIM scores. Prevalence ratios were used for discharge disposition outcomes.

Results: Regional differences were identified in functional outcomes for patients with TBI. The West had the highest community discharge rate (80.9%) compared to the East (70.5%). Discharge FIM scores were significantly lower in the Midwest and East compared to the South (-1.98 and - 2.31, respectively, P < .01), while the West showed no significant difference from the South (-0.78, P = .11). Effect sizes for FIM total scores were small across regions, with Cohen's d for West versus South at 0.017, Midwest versus South at 0.047, and East versus South at 0.047. Prevalence ratios for community discharge showed minor differences: West versus South at 1.010, Midwest versus South at 0.937, and East versus South at 0.918; all without statistical significance.

Conclusions: Regional disparities in functional outcomes following inpatient rehabilitation for TBI were observed, particularly in community discharge rates and total FIM scores. However, based on the effect sizes and prevalence ratios, these differences may not be clinically meaningful and could not be fully explained by demographic and clinical factors. Further studies are needed to explore region-specific factors influencing rehabilitation efficacy to improve outcomes for patients with TBI nationwide.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
创伤性脑损伤后住院患者康复结果的地理差异。
目的:在控制人口统计学和临床变量的情况下,确定美国住院康复机构(irf)收治的创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者的功能结局是否存在区域差异。环境:美国4个地区的住院康复设施(irf):西部、中西部、南部和东部。参与者:2016年至2019年期间从IRF出院的开放性或闭合性TBI(康复损伤代码2.21或2.22)的成年患者。设计:这是对医学康复统一数据系统中去识别数据的回顾性分析。该研究比较了4个地区的总功能独立性测量(FIM)得分和放电倾向。主要指标:主要结果是出院时FIM评分、入院和出院间FIM评分的变化以及社区出院率,并根据人口统计学和临床因素进行调整。计算Cohen效应量以评估FIM评分的地区差异的临床意义。使用患病率比率作为出院处置结果。结果:TBI患者的功能结局存在区域差异。西部社区出院率(80.9%)高于东部(70.5%)。与南部相比,中西部和东部的出院FIM评分明显较低(分别为-1.98和- 2.31)。结论:观察到创伤性脑损伤住院康复后功能结局的地区差异,特别是社区出院率和总FIM评分。然而,基于效应量和患病率,这些差异可能没有临床意义,也不能完全用人口统计学和临床因素来解释。需要进一步的研究来探索影响康复疗效的地区特异性因素,以改善全国TBI患者的预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
153
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation is a leading, peer-reviewed resource that provides up-to-date information on the clinical management and rehabilitation of persons with traumatic brain injuries. Six issues each year aspire to the vision of “knowledge informing care” and include a wide range of articles, topical issues, commentaries and special features. It is the official journal of the Brain Injury Association of America (BIAA).
期刊最新文献
Quantifying the Relationship Between Clinician-Administered Measures of Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex and Oculomotor Function and Patient-Reported Outcome After Pediatric Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Multidimensional Classification and Prediction of Outcome Following Traumatic Brain Injury. Neurobehavioral Symptoms Partially Mediate the Effects of Depression and PTSD on Participation for Veterans With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Cross-Sectional Study. Sex Differences in Early/Unplanned Separation Among US Service Members With a History of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Assessing Traumatic Brain Injury in Refugees: Feasibility, Usability, and Prevalence Insights From a US-Based Clinical Sample.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1