Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Could an integrated model of health and social care after critical illness reduce socioeconomic disparities in outcomes? A Bayesian analysis.
McPeake, Joanne; Iwashyna, Theodore J; MacTavish, Pamela; Devine, Helen; Henderson, Phil; Quasim, Tara; Shaw, Martin.
  • McPeake J; The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
  • Iwashyna TJ; Johns Hopkins University, Medicine and Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • MacTavish P; Glasgow Royal Infirmary, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
  • Devine H; Crosshouse University Teaching Hospital, NHS Ayrshire and Arran, Kilmarnock, UK.
  • Henderson P; Royal Alexandria Hospital, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
  • Quasim T; Glasgow Royal Infirmary, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
  • Shaw M; University of Glasgow, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, Glasgow, UK.
BJA Open ; 9: 100259, 2024 Mar.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38322488
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 InSPIRE 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% (ß=0.71, 95% credible interval 0.34-1.09) over 12 months to those in the SIMD≤3 cohort, and an 98.6% (ß=-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.
Palabras clave