Cargando…

A comparison of deprivation indices and application to transplant populations

The choice of deprivation index can influence conclusions drawn regarding the extent of deprivation within a community and the identification of the most deprived communities in the United States. This study aimed to determine the degree of correlation among deprivation indices commonly used to char...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Park, Christine, Schappe, Tyler, Peskoe, Sarah, Mohottige, Dinushika, Chan, Norine W., Bhavsar, Nrupen A., Boulware, L. Ebony, Pendergast, Jane, Kirk, Allan D., McElroy, Lisa M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10226151/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36695687
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajt.2022.11.018
_version_ 1785050517398880256
author Park, Christine
Schappe, Tyler
Peskoe, Sarah
Mohottige, Dinushika
Chan, Norine W.
Bhavsar, Nrupen A.
Boulware, L. Ebony
Pendergast, Jane
Kirk, Allan D.
McElroy, Lisa M.
author_facet Park, Christine
Schappe, Tyler
Peskoe, Sarah
Mohottige, Dinushika
Chan, Norine W.
Bhavsar, Nrupen A.
Boulware, L. Ebony
Pendergast, Jane
Kirk, Allan D.
McElroy, Lisa M.
author_sort Park, Christine
collection PubMed
description The choice of deprivation index can influence conclusions drawn regarding the extent of deprivation within a community and the identification of the most deprived communities in the United States. This study aimed to determine the degree of correlation among deprivation indices commonly used to characterize transplant populations. We used a retrospective cohort consisting of adults listed for liver or kidney transplants between 2008 and 2018 to compare 4 deprivation indices: neighborhood deprivation index, social deprivation index (SDI), area deprivation index, and social vulnerability index. Pairwise correlation between deprivation indices by transplant referral regions was measured using Spearman correlations of population-weighted medians and upper quartiles. In total, 52 individual variables were used among the 4 deprivation indices with 25% overlap. For both organs, the correlation between the population-weighted 75th percentile of the deprivation indices by transplant referral region was highest between SDI and social vulnerability index (liver and kidney, 0.93) and lowest between area deprivation index and SDI (liver, 0.19 and kidney, 0.15). The choice of deprivation index affects the applicability of research findings across studies examining the relationship between social risk and clinical outcomes. Appropriate application of these measures to transplant populations requires careful index selection based on the intended use and included variable relevance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10226151
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102261512023-05-29 A comparison of deprivation indices and application to transplant populations Park, Christine Schappe, Tyler Peskoe, Sarah Mohottige, Dinushika Chan, Norine W. Bhavsar, Nrupen A. Boulware, L. Ebony Pendergast, Jane Kirk, Allan D. McElroy, Lisa M. Am J Transplant Article The choice of deprivation index can influence conclusions drawn regarding the extent of deprivation within a community and the identification of the most deprived communities in the United States. This study aimed to determine the degree of correlation among deprivation indices commonly used to characterize transplant populations. We used a retrospective cohort consisting of adults listed for liver or kidney transplants between 2008 and 2018 to compare 4 deprivation indices: neighborhood deprivation index, social deprivation index (SDI), area deprivation index, and social vulnerability index. Pairwise correlation between deprivation indices by transplant referral regions was measured using Spearman correlations of population-weighted medians and upper quartiles. In total, 52 individual variables were used among the 4 deprivation indices with 25% overlap. For both organs, the correlation between the population-weighted 75th percentile of the deprivation indices by transplant referral region was highest between SDI and social vulnerability index (liver and kidney, 0.93) and lowest between area deprivation index and SDI (liver, 0.19 and kidney, 0.15). The choice of deprivation index affects the applicability of research findings across studies examining the relationship between social risk and clinical outcomes. Appropriate application of these measures to transplant populations requires careful index selection based on the intended use and included variable relevance. 2023-03 2023-01-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10226151/ /pubmed/36695687 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajt.2022.11.018 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ).
spellingShingle Article
Park, Christine
Schappe, Tyler
Peskoe, Sarah
Mohottige, Dinushika
Chan, Norine W.
Bhavsar, Nrupen A.
Boulware, L. Ebony
Pendergast, Jane
Kirk, Allan D.
McElroy, Lisa M.
A comparison of deprivation indices and application to transplant populations
title A comparison of deprivation indices and application to transplant populations
title_full A comparison of deprivation indices and application to transplant populations
title_fullStr A comparison of deprivation indices and application to transplant populations
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of deprivation indices and application to transplant populations
title_short A comparison of deprivation indices and application to transplant populations
title_sort comparison of deprivation indices and application to transplant populations
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10226151/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36695687
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajt.2022.11.018
work_keys_str_mv AT parkchristine acomparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT schappetyler acomparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT peskoesarah acomparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT mohottigedinushika acomparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT channorinew acomparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT bhavsarnrupena acomparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT boulwarelebony acomparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT pendergastjane acomparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT kirkalland acomparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT mcelroylisam acomparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT parkchristine comparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT schappetyler comparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT peskoesarah comparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT mohottigedinushika comparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT channorinew comparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT bhavsarnrupena comparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT boulwarelebony comparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT pendergastjane comparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT kirkalland comparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations
AT mcelroylisam comparisonofdeprivationindicesandapplicationtotransplantpopulations