Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May 6:13:857094.
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.857094. eCollection 2022.

Disparities in Stroke Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Between Healthcare Systems in Brazil

Sheila Cristina Ouriques Martins  1   2   3   4 , Wyllians Vendramini Borelli  2   3   5 , Thais Leite Secchi  1   2   4   6 , Gabriel Paulo Mantovani  2   3   4 , Arthur Pille  2   4   6 , Daissy Liliana Mora Cuervo  1   4 , Leonardo Augusto Carbonera  1   4 , Ana Claudia de Souza  1   4   6 , Magda Carla Ouriques Martins  1   2   4 , Rosane Brondani  2   3   4 , Andrea Garcia de Almeida  1   2   3   4 , Angélica Dal Pizzol  1   2   3   4 , Franciele Pereira Dos Santos  1   2   4 , Ana Claudia Alves  3 , Nathalia Soares Meier  3 , Guilherme Pamplona Bueno Andrade  3 , Pedro Angst Maciel  3 , Alexandre Weber  3 , Gustavo Dariva Machado  3 , Mohamed Parrini  7 , Luiz Antonio Nasi  7
Affiliations

Disparities in Stroke Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Between Healthcare Systems in Brazil

Sheila Cristina Ouriques Martins et al. Front Neurol. .

Abstract

Introduction: Acute stroke interventions, such as stroke units and reperfusion therapy, have the potential to improve outcomes. However, there are many disparities in patient characteristics and access to the best stroke care. Thus, we aim to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after stroke in two stroke centers representing the public and private healthcare systems in Brazil.

Methods: PROMs through the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measures (ICHOM) were assessed at 90 days after the stroke to compare two Brazilian hospitals in southern Brazil: a public university and a private stroke center, both with stroke protocols and stroke units.

Results: When compared with the private setting (n = 165), patients from the public hospital (n = 175) were younger, had poorer control of risk factors, had more frequent previous strokes, and arrived with more severe strokes. Both hospitals had a similar percentage of IV thrombolysis treatment. Only 5 patients received mechanical thrombectomy (MT), all in the private hospital. Public hospital patients presented significantly worse outcomes at 3 months, including worse quality of life and functional dependence (60 vs. 48%, p = 0.03). Poor outcome, as measured by the mRS score, was significantly associated with older age, higher NIHSS score, and the presence of heart failure. However, the public practice was a strong predictor of any self-reported disability.

Conclusion: Patients assisted at a good quality public stroke center with the same protocol used in the private hospital presented worse disability as measured by mRS and patient-reported outcome measures, with greater inability to communicate, dress, toilet, feed, and walk.

Keywords: International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement; disparities health; healthcare system; low- and middle-income countries; patient reported outcome (PROM); stroke; stroke care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the patients included in the study.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Patient-reported outcomes measurement of post-stroke patients in a public (blue) and a private (red) settings. The external line represents 100% of patients with good outcomes in each domain. *p < 0.05.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Feigin VL, Stark BA, Johnson CO, Roth GA, Bisignano C, Abady GG, et al. . Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet Neurol. (2021) 20(10):795–820. 10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00252-0 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Feigin VL, Vos T. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders during 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2015. Lancet Neurol. (2017) 16:877–97. 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30299-5 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Feigin VL, Roth GA, Naghavi M, Parmar P, Krishnamurthi R, Chugh S, et al. . Global burden of stroke and risk factors in 188 countries, during 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2013. Lancet Neurol. (2016) 15:913–24. 10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30073-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Katan M, Luft A. Global burden of stroke. Semin Neurol. (2018) 38:208–11. 10.1055/s-0038-1649503 - DOI - PubMed
    1. GBD 2016 Brazil Collaborators . Burden of disease in Brazil, 1990-2016: a systematic subnational analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet. (2018) 392:760–75. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31221-2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources