McPeake Joanne, Iwashyna Theodore J, MacTavish Pamela, Devine Helen, Henderson Phil, Quasim Tara, Shaw Martin
The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Johns Hopkins University, Medicine and Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
BJA Open. 2024 Jan 31;9:100259. doi: 10.1016/j.bjao.2024.100259. eCollection 2024 Mar.
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.
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.
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 SIMD≥4 cohort in the EQ-visual analogue scale.
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.
关于康复服务对危重症后不同社会经济阶层患者可能产生何种影响(若有影响的话),现有证据有限。我们分析了一项多中心危重症康复项目的数据,以了解该项目在不同社会经济阶层中的影响。
这项预先计划的二次分析的背景是一个危重症康复项目——重症监护综合征:促进独立和重返工作岗位。数据收集自开展该项目的五个医院站点。我们采用贝叶斯方法进行分析,探讨“激励”干预措施对不同社会经济梯度下健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)的任何可能影响。使用了贝叶斯分位数、非线性混合效应回归模型,采用复合对称协方差结构,并考虑了多个时间点。苏格兰多重贫困指数(SIMD)用于衡量社会经济地位,HRQoL使用EQ-5D-5L进行测量。
在最初的182例患者基线队列中,55%为男性,中位年龄为58岁(四分位间距:50 - 66岁),129例(79%)患者在重症监护病房入院时有两种或更多合并症。使用中性先验,对于SIMD≤3队列中的患者,在12个月内干预受益的总体概率为100%(β = 0.71,95%可信区间:0.34 - 1.09),在EQ视觉模拟量表中,SIMD≤3队列与SIMD≥4队列相比,12个月时受益更大(即改善幅度增加更陡峭)的概率为98.6%(β = -1.38,95%可信区间:-2.62至-0.16)。
通过多中心数据,这项重新分析表明,但未证明,综合的健康和社会护理干预可能会改善危重症后不同社会经济梯度下的结局,对来自贫困社区的患者可能有更大益处。有必要开展未来研究,前瞻性分析危重症康复项目如何可能改善不同社会经济梯度下的结局。