Piatt Joseph
J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2020 Jul 31;26(5):476-482. doi: 10.3171/2020.5.PEDS20336. Print 2020 Nov 1.
Social disparities in healthcare outcomes are almost ubiquitous, and trauma care is no exception. Because social factors cannot cause a trauma outcome directly, there must exist mediating causal factors related to the nature and severity of the injury, the robustness of the victim, access to care, or processes of care. Identification of these causal factors is the first step in the movement toward health equity.
A noninferiority analysis was undertaken to compare mortality rates between Black children and White children after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Data were derived from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) registries for the years 2014 through 2017. Inclusion criteria were age younger than 19 years and head Abbreviated Injury Scale scores of 4, 5, or 6. A noninferiority margin of 10% was preselected. A logistic regression propensity score model was developed to distinguish Black and White children based on all available covariates associated with race at p < 0.10. Stabilized inverse probability weighting and a one-tailed 95% CI were used to test the noninferiority hypothesis.
There were 7273 observations of White children and 2320 observations of Black children. The raw mortality rates were 15.6% and 22.8% for White and Black children, respectively. The final propensity score model included 31 covariates. It had good fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 = 7.1604, df = 8; p = 0.5194) and good discrimination (c-statistic = 0.752). The adjusted mortality rates were 17.82% and 17.79% for White and Black children, respectively. The relative risk was 0.9986, with a confidence interval upper limit of 1.0865. The relative risk corresponding to the noninferiority margin was 1.1. The hypothesis of noninferiority was supported.
Data captured in the TQIP registries are sufficient to explain the observed racial disparities in mortality after TBI in childhood. Speculations about genetic or epigenetic factors are not supported by this analysis. Discriminatory care may still be a factor in TBI mortality disparities, but it is not occult. If it exists, evidence for it can be sought among the data included in the TQIP registries.
医疗保健结果中的社会差异几乎普遍存在,创伤护理也不例外。由于社会因素不能直接导致创伤结果,因此必然存在与损伤的性质和严重程度、受害者的健康状况、获得护理的机会或护理过程相关的中介因果因素。识别这些因果因素是迈向健康公平的第一步。
进行非劣效性分析,以比较创伤性脑损伤(TBI)后黑人儿童和白人儿童的死亡率。数据来自2014年至2017年的创伤质量改进计划(TQIP)登记处。纳入标准为年龄小于19岁且头部简明损伤量表评分为4、5或6。预先选择10%的非劣效性界值。建立逻辑回归倾向评分模型,根据所有与种族相关的可用协变量(p<0.10)区分黑人和白人儿童。使用稳定的逆概率加权和单尾95%置信区间来检验非劣效性假设。
有7273例白人儿童观察数据和2320例黑人儿童观察数据。白人儿童和黑人儿童的原始死亡率分别为15.6%和22.8%。最终的倾向评分模型包括31个协变量。它具有良好的拟合度(Hosmer-Lemeshow卡方=7.1604,自由度=8;p=0.5194)和良好的区分度(c统计量=0.752)。白人儿童和黑人儿童的调整后死亡率分别为17.82%和17.79%。相对风险为0.9986,置信区间上限为1.0865。对应于非劣效性界值的相对风险为1.1。非劣效性假设得到支持。
TQIP登记处记录的数据足以解释儿童TBI后观察到的死亡率种族差异。该分析不支持关于遗传或表观遗传因素的推测。歧视性护理可能仍是TBI死亡率差异的一个因素,但并非难以察觉。如果存在,可在TQIP登记处包含的数据中寻找相关证据。