Impact of neighborhood deprivation and social vulnerability on long-term outcomes and desire for revision in patients with craniosynostosis.

OBJECTIVE: The authors utilized the area deprivation index (ADI), a validated composite measure of socioeconomic disadvantage, and the social vulnerability index (SVI) to examine whether differences in neighborhood deprivation impact interventions and outcomes among patients with craniosynostosis. METHODS: Patients who underwent craniosynostosis repair between 2012 and 2017 were included. The authors collected data about demographic characteristics, comorbidities, follow-up visits, interventions, complications, desire for revision, and speech, developmental, and behavioral outcomes. National percentiles for ADI and SVI were determined using zip and Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) codes. ADI and SVI were analyzed by tertile. Firth logistic regressions and Spearman correlations were used to assess associations between ADI/SVI tertile and outcomes/interventions that differed on univariate analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed to examine these associations in patients with nonsyndromic craniosynostosis. Differences in length of follow-up among the nonsyndromic patients in the different deprivation groups were assessed with multivariate Cox regressions. RESULTS: In total, 195 patients were included, with 37% of patients in the most disadvantaged ADI tertile and 20% of patients in the most vulnerable SVI tertile. Patients in more disadvantaged ADI tertiles were less likely to have physician-reported desire (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.61, p < 0.01) or parent-reported desire (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.52, p < 0.01) for revision, independent of sex and insurance status. In the nonsyndromic subgroup, inclusion in a more disadvantaged ADI tertile was associated with increased odds of speech/language concerns (OR 4.42, 95% CI 1.41-22.62, p < 0.01). There were no differences in interventions received or outcomes among SVI tertiles (p ≥ 0.24). Neither ADI nor SVI tertile was associated with risk of loss to follow-up among nonsyndromic patients (p ≥ 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Patients from the most disadvantaged neighborhoods may be at risk for poor speech outcomes and different standards of assessment for revision. Neighborhood measures of disadvantage represent a valuable tool to improve patient-centered care by allowing for modification of treatment protocols to meet the unique needs of patients and their families.