Reducing Ethnic and Geographic Inequities to Optimise New Zealand Stroke Care (REGIONS Care): Protocol for a Nationwide Observational Study.

Māori Pacific people cost-efficacy health inequities observational study protocols rehabilitation rural stroke stroke units

Journal

JMIR research protocols
ISSN: 1929-0748
Titre abrégé: JMIR Res Protoc
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101599504

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 Jan 2021
Historique:
received: 16 11 2020
accepted: 19 11 2020
entrez: 12 1 2021
pubmed: 13 1 2021
medline: 13 1 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Stroke systems of care differ between larger urban and smaller rural settings and it is unclear to what extent this may impact on patient outcomes. Ethnicity influences stroke risk factors and care delivery as well as patient outcomes in nonstroke settings. Little is known about the impact of ethnicity on poststroke care, especially in Māori and Pacific populations. Our goal is to describe the protocol for the Reducing Ethnic and Geographic Inequities to Optimise New Zealand Stroke Care (REGIONS Care) study. This large, nationwide observational study assesses the impact of rurality and ethnicity on best practice stroke care access and outcomes involving all 28 New Zealand hospitals caring for stroke patients, by capturing every stroke patient admitted to hospital during the 2017-2018 study period. In addition, it explores current access barriers through consumer focus groups and consumer, carer, clinician, manager, and policy-maker surveys. It also assesses the economic impact of care provided at different types of hospitals and to patients of different ethnicities and explores the cost-efficacy of individual interventions and care bundles. Finally, it compares manual data collection to routine health administrative data and explores the feasibility of developing outcome models using only administrative data and the cost-efficacy of using additional manually collected registry data. Regarding sample size estimates, in Part 1, Study A, 2400 participants are needed to identify a 10% difference between up to four geographic subgroups at 90% power with an α value of .05 and 10% to 20% loss to follow-up. In Part 1, Study B, a sample of 7645 participants was expected to include an estimated 850 Māori and 419 Pacific patients and to provide over 90% and over 80% power, respectively. Regarding Part 2, 50% of the patient or carer surveys, 40 provider surveys, and 10 focus groups were needed to achieve saturation of themes. The main outcome is the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include mRS scores; EQ-5D-3L (5-dimension, 3-level EuroQol questionnaire) scores; stroke recurrence; vascular events; death; readmission at 3, 6, and 12 months; cost of care; and themes around access barriers. The study is underway, with national and institutional ethics approvals in place. A total of 2379 patients have been recruited for Part 1, Study A; 6837 patients have been recruited for Part 1, Study B; 10 focus groups have been conducted and 70 surveys have been completed in Part 2. Data collection has essentially been completed, including follow-up assessment; however, primary and secondary analyses, data linkage, data validation, and health economics analysis are still underway. The methods of this study may provide the basis for future epidemiological studies that will guide care improvements in other countries and populations. DERR1-10.2196/25374.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Stroke systems of care differ between larger urban and smaller rural settings and it is unclear to what extent this may impact on patient outcomes. Ethnicity influences stroke risk factors and care delivery as well as patient outcomes in nonstroke settings. Little is known about the impact of ethnicity on poststroke care, especially in Māori and Pacific populations.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
Our goal is to describe the protocol for the Reducing Ethnic and Geographic Inequities to Optimise New Zealand Stroke Care (REGIONS Care) study.
METHODS METHODS
This large, nationwide observational study assesses the impact of rurality and ethnicity on best practice stroke care access and outcomes involving all 28 New Zealand hospitals caring for stroke patients, by capturing every stroke patient admitted to hospital during the 2017-2018 study period. In addition, it explores current access barriers through consumer focus groups and consumer, carer, clinician, manager, and policy-maker surveys. It also assesses the economic impact of care provided at different types of hospitals and to patients of different ethnicities and explores the cost-efficacy of individual interventions and care bundles. Finally, it compares manual data collection to routine health administrative data and explores the feasibility of developing outcome models using only administrative data and the cost-efficacy of using additional manually collected registry data. Regarding sample size estimates, in Part 1, Study A, 2400 participants are needed to identify a 10% difference between up to four geographic subgroups at 90% power with an α value of .05 and 10% to 20% loss to follow-up. In Part 1, Study B, a sample of 7645 participants was expected to include an estimated 850 Māori and 419 Pacific patients and to provide over 90% and over 80% power, respectively. Regarding Part 2, 50% of the patient or carer surveys, 40 provider surveys, and 10 focus groups were needed to achieve saturation of themes. The main outcome is the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include mRS scores; EQ-5D-3L (5-dimension, 3-level EuroQol questionnaire) scores; stroke recurrence; vascular events; death; readmission at 3, 6, and 12 months; cost of care; and themes around access barriers.
RESULTS RESULTS
The study is underway, with national and institutional ethics approvals in place. A total of 2379 patients have been recruited for Part 1, Study A; 6837 patients have been recruited for Part 1, Study B; 10 focus groups have been conducted and 70 surveys have been completed in Part 2. Data collection has essentially been completed, including follow-up assessment; however, primary and secondary analyses, data linkage, data validation, and health economics analysis are still underway.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The methods of this study may provide the basis for future epidemiological studies that will guide care improvements in other countries and populations.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID) UNASSIGNED
DERR1-10.2196/25374.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33433396
pii: v10i1e25374
doi: 10.2196/25374
pmc: PMC7838000
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e25374

Informations de copyright

©Annemarei Ranta, Stephanie Thompson, Matire Louise Ngarongoa Harwood, Dominique Ann-Michele Cadilhac, Peter Alan Barber, Alan John Davis, John Henry Gommans, John Newton Fink, Harry Karel McNaughton, Hayley Denison, Marine Corbin, Valery Feigin, Virginia Abernethy, William Levack, Jeroen Douwes, Jacqueline Girvan, Andrew Wilson. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 12.01.2021.

Références

Lancet. 2006 Jun 17;367(9527):2005-9
pubmed: 16782491
Stroke. 2006 Jan;37(1):56-62
pubmed: 16339477
N Z Med J. 2014 Sep 12;127(1402):10-9
pubmed: 25228417
N Z Med J. 2011 Aug 12;124(1340):13-20
pubmed: 21952381
N Z Med J. 2018 Jun 22;131(1477):15-28
pubmed: 29927912
Neurol Int. 2013 Feb 19;5(1):e2
pubmed: 23717781
Int J Epidemiol. 2019 Jun 1;48(3):677-677e
pubmed: 30793742
Lancet Neurol. 2006 Feb;5(2):130-9
pubmed: 16426989
N Z Med J. 2016 Jul 15;129(1438):44-9
pubmed: 27447135
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 11;(9):CD000197
pubmed: 24026639
Am J Public Health. 2006 Apr;96(4):612-7
pubmed: 16507721
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004 Mar;75(3):401-5
pubmed: 14966155
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1991 Dec;54(12):1044-54
pubmed: 1783914
Stroke Res Treat. 2014;2014:950746
pubmed: 25028619
Neurology. 2010 Nov 2;75(18):1597-607
pubmed: 21041783
Stroke. 2011 Apr;42(4):960-4
pubmed: 21311061
Circulation. 2010 Apr 6;121(13):1492-501
pubmed: 20308617
Lancet Neurol. 2019 May;18(5):439-458
pubmed: 30871944
Arch Neurol. 1987 Nov;44(11):1167-72
pubmed: 3675249
Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
pubmed: 10109801
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Apr 23;4:CD000197
pubmed: 32324916

Auteurs

Annemarei Ranta (A)

Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Department of Neurology, Capital and Coast District Health Board, Wellington, New Zealand.

Stephanie Thompson (S)

Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.

Matire Louise Ngarongoa Harwood (MLN)

Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Dominique Ann-Michele Cadilhac (DA)

Translational Public Health and Evaluation Division, Stroke and Ageing Research in the Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Peter Alan Barber (PA)

Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Alan John Davis (AJ)

Northland District Health Board, Whangārei, New Zealand.

John Henry Gommans (JH)

Hawke's Bay District Health Board, Hastings, New Zealand.

John Newton Fink (JN)

Department of Neurology, Christchurch Hospital, Canterbury District Health Board, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Harry Karel McNaughton (HK)

Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.

Hayley Denison (H)

Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand.

Marine Corbin (M)

Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand.

Valery Feigin (V)

Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.

Virginia Abernethy (V)

Stroke Foundation of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.

William Levack (W)

Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.

Jeroen Douwes (J)

Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand.

Andrew Wilson (A)

Nelson-Malborough District Health Board, Neslon-Malborough, New Zealand.

Classifications MeSH