Predicting non-response in patient-reported outcome measures: results from the Swiss quality assurance programme in cardiac inpatient rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Quality assurance programmes measure and compare certain health outcomes to ensure high-quality care in the health-care sector. The outcome of health-related quality of life is typically measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, certain patient groups are less likely to respond to PROMs than others. This non-response bias can potentially distort results in quality assurance programmes. OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to identify relevant predictors of non-response during assessment using the PROM MacNew Heart Disease questionnaire in cardiac rehabilitation. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study based on data from the Swiss external quality assurance programme. All patients aged 18 years or older who underwent inpatient cardiac rehabilitation in 16 Swiss rehabilitation clinics between 2016 and 2019 were included. Patients' socio-demographic and basic medical data were analysed descriptively by comparing two groups: non-responders and responders. We used a random intercept logistic regression model to estimate the associations of patient characteristics and clinic differences with non-response. RESULTS: Of 24 572 patients, there were 33.3% non-responders and 66.7% responders. The mean age was 70 years, and 31.0% were women. The regression model showed that being female was associated with non-response [odds ratio (OR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14-1.30], as well as having no supplementary health insurance (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.39-1.59). Each additional year of age increased the chance of non-response by an OR of 1.02 (95% CI 1.02-1.02). Not being a first language speaker of German, French or Italian increased the chance of non-response by an OR of 6.94 (95% CI 6.03-7.99). Patients admitted directly from acute care had a higher chance of non-response (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.10-1.38), as well as patients being discharged back into acute care after rehabilitation (OR 3.89; 95% CI 3.00-5.04). Each point on the cumulative illness rating scale total score increased the chance of non-response by an OR of 1.05 (95% CI 1.04-1.05). Certain diagnoses also influenced the chance of non-response. Even after adjustment for known confounders, response rates differed substantially between the 16 clinics. CONCLUSION: We have found significant non-response bias among certain patient groups, as well as across different treatment facilities. Measures to improve response rates among patients with known barriers to participation, as well as among different treatment facilities, need to be considered, particularly when PROMs are being used for comparison of providers in quality assurance programmes or outcome evaluation.

[Social Inequalities in Access to and Utilization of Medical Rehabilitation - Results of the Third German Sociomedical Panel of Employees (GSPE-III)]. / Soziale Ungleichheiten im Zugang und in der Inanspruchnahme von medizinischen Rehabilitationsmaßnahmen.

AIM OF THE STUDY: The influence of social status on health is well documented. Preliminary research provides initial evidence for social inequalities in rehabilitation care. Our study examines the role of social inequalities with respect to access and utilisation of medical rehabilitation services by analysing a risk cohort of the German Statutory Pension Insurance Scheme (Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund). METHODS: Data for the analysis consists of questionnaire data from the first two waves of the Third German Socio-medical Panel of Employees (GSPE-III) and administrative data of participants (2013-2016). This risk cohort comprises 40-54-year-old employees receiving sickness benefits in 2012. Using logistic regression models, the application for medical rehabilitation, its approval and rejection, possible opposition proceedings and its subsequent utilisation were analysed. The social status was measured by an index as well as by the single dimension of education. The analyses were carried out separately by gender. Age, employment status and subjective health status were considered as covariates. RESULTS: A total of 2.376 insured employees, 1.092 men and 1.284 women, were included in the analysis. 639 (26.9%) submitted at least one application for medical rehabilitation. The chance of submitting an application was higher for men with low socioeconomic status (OR=1.8; 95%-CI=1.3-2.5) or lower (OR=1.9; 95%-CI=1.3-2.8) and medium education (OR=1.5; 95%-CI=1.1-2.2) in relation to the high status or education group. For women, low education (OR=1.6; 95%-CI=1.1-2.5) raised the chances of an application. When adjusted for health status and current employment situation, all significant differences disappeared. Regarding approval and utilisation, there were no significant differences between socioeconomic status groups, but women with a medium level of education were significantly more likely to have their application approved on the basis of an opposition proceeding (OR=3.0; 95%-CI=1.1-8.2) than women with a high level of education. CONCLUSION: The analyses provided no evidence of a socially unequal access to or utilization of medical rehabilitation. However, insured persons with a low social status more frequently applied for rehabilitation, especially because of their poorer subjective health. Further research is needed to ensure that this meets the objective needs of this status group.

Self-reported work ability predicts health-related exit and absence from work, work participation, and death: longitudinal findings from a sample of German employees.

OBJECTIVE: The cohort study examined the performance of the Work Ability Index in predicting health-related exit and absence from work, work participation, and death among a sample of workers previously receiving sickness absence benefits. METHODS: Workers aged 40-54 years who received sickness absence benefits in 2012 completed the Work Ability Index in 2013. Outcomes were extracted from administrative data records covering the period until the end of 2016. RESULTS: Data for 2266 participants were included (mean age: 47.9 years; 54.4% women). Maximum follow-up was 43 months. In terms of work ability, 38.4% had good scores, 38.2% moderate scores, and 23.4% poor scores. Fully adjusted analyses showed an increased risk of a disability pension in workers with poor (HR = 12.98; 95% CI 5.81-28.99) and moderate Work Ability Index scores (HR = 3.17; 95% CI 1.36-7.38) compared to workers with good or excellent scores. The risk of a rehabilitation measure was also significantly increased for workers with poor and moderate scores. In addition, poor scores were prospectively associated with a longer duration of sickness absence and unemployment benefits, and fewer employment days and less income from regular employment. Those with poor Work Ability Index scores also had a significantly increased risk of premature death. CONCLUSIONS: The Work Ability Index is a potential tool to identify individuals with previous long-term sickness absence having an increased risk of health-related exit and absence from work and poor work participation outcomes.