ICU sedation, delirium & recovery
Could an integrated model of health and social care after critical illness reduce socioeconomic disparities in outcomes? A Bayesian analysis
Authors' conclusion
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.
Study context
- Population
- Patients after critical illness attending a critical care rehabilitation programme at five hospital sitesbaseline cohort
- Participants
- 182 patients
- Comparison
- InS:PIRE intervention effect on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) across socioeconomic gradient
- Primary endpoint
- HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L; EQ-VAS)
- Follow-up
- 12 months
Methodological detailspre-planned, multicentre, Bayesian quantile non-linear mixed effects regression
- Pre-planned
- Multicentre
- Bayesian quantile non-linear mixed effects regression
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
EQ-VAS
β
0.71
95% CrI 0.34–1.09
probability of intervention benefit 100%, over 12 months
β
−1.38
95% CrI −2.62 to −0.16
98.6% probability of greater benefit (steeper increase in improvement) at 12 months
Original publication
Could an integrated model of health and social care after critical illness reduce socioeconomic disparities in outcomes? A Bayesian analysis. BJA Open. Published 31 January 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →