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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |