Multimorbidity, the coexistence of 2 or more chronic conditions, has become prevalent among older adults as mortality rates have declined and the population has aged. We examined population-based administrative claims data indicating specific health service delivery to nearly 31 million Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries for 15 prevalent chronic conditions. A total of 67% had multimorbidity, which increased with age, from 50% for persons under age 65 years to 62% for those aged 65-74 years and 81.5% for those aged ≥85 years. A systematic review identified 16 other prevalence studies conducted in community samples that included older adults, with median prevalence of 63% and a mode of 67%. Prevalence differences between studies are probably due to methodological biases; no studies were comparable. Key methodological issues arise from elements of the case definition, including type and number of chronic conditions included, ascertainment methods, and source population. Standardized methods for measuring multimorbidity are needed to enable public health surveillance and prevention. Multimorbidity is associated with elevated risk of death, disability, poor functional status, poor quality of life, and adverse drug events. Additional research is needed to develop an understanding of causal pathways and to further develop and test potential clinical and population interventions targeting multimorbidity.

/pdf/multimorbidity-in-older-adults-2qxw4o7pi4.pdf

Multimorbidity in Older Adults

Introduction 
Multimorbidity is a major concern in primary care. Nevertheless, evidence of prevalence and patterns of multimorbidity, and their determinants, are scarce. The aim of this study is to systematically review studies of the prevalence, patterns and determinants of multimorbidity in primary care.


Methods 
Systematic review of literature published between 1961 and 2013 and indexed in Ovid (CINAHL, PsychINFO, Medline and Embase) and Web of Knowledge. Studies were selected according to eligibility criteria of addressing prevalence, determinants, and patterns of multimorbidity and using a pretested proforma in primary care. The quality and risk of bias were assessed using STROBE criteria. Two researchers assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion (Kappa = 0.86).


Results 
We identified 39 eligible publications describing studies that included a total of 70,057,611 patients in 12 countries. The number of health conditions analysed per study ranged from 5 to 335, with multimorbidity prevalence ranging from 12.9% to 95.1%. All studies observed a significant positive association between multimorbidity and age (odds ratio [OR], 1.26 to 227.46), and lower socioeconomic status (OR, 1.20 to 1.91). Positive associations with female gender and mental disorders were also observed. The most frequent patterns of multimorbidity included osteoarthritis together with cardiovascular and/or metabolic conditions.


Conclusions 
Well-established determinants of multimorbidity include age, lower socioeconomic status and gender. The most prevalent conditions shape the patterns of multimorbidity. However, the limitations of the current evidence base means that further and better designed studies are needed to inform policy, research and clinical practice, with the goal of improving health-related quality of life for patients with multimorbidity. Standardization of the definition and assessment of multimorbidity is essential in order to better understand this phenomenon, and is a necessary immediate step.

/pdf/prevalence-determinants-and-patterns-of-multimorbidity-in-4gqa2ewt19.pdf

Prevalence, Determinants and Patterns of Multimorbidity in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies

Objective To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.

Design Systematic review.

Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CAB Health, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness, and the Cochrane EPOC (effective practice and organisation of care) register (searches updated in April 2011).

Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses reporting on interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. Outcomes included any validated measure of physical or mental health and psychosocial status, including quality of life outcomes, wellbeing, and measures of disability or functional status. Also included were measures of patient and provider behaviour, including drug adherence, utilisation of health services, acceptability of services, and costs.

Data selection Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed study quality. As meta-analysis of results was not possible owing to heterogeneity in participants and interventions, a narrative synthesis of the results from the included studies was carried out.

Results 10 studies examining a range of complex interventions totalling 3407 patients with multimorbidity were identified. All were randomised controlled trials with a low risk of bias. Two studies described interventions for patients with specific comorbidities. The remaining eight studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older patients. Consideration of the impact of socioeconomic deprivation was minimal. All studies involved complex interventions with multiple components. In six of the 10 studies the predominant component was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In the remaining four studies, intervention components were predominantly patient oriented. Overall the results were mixed, with a trend towards improved prescribing and drug adherence. The results indicated that it is difficult to improve outcomes in this population but that interventions focusing on particular risk factors in comorbid conditions or functional difficulties in multimorbidity may be more effective. No economic analyses were included, although the improvements in prescribing and risk factor management in some studies could provide potentially important cost savings.

Conclusions Evidence on the care of patients with multimorbidity is limited, despite the prevalence of multimorbidity and its impact on patients and healthcare systems. Interventions to date have had mixed effects, although are likely to be more effective if targeted at risk factors or specific functional difficulties. A need exists to clearly identify patients with multimorbidity and to develop cost effective and specifically targeted interventions that can improve health outcomes.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/345/bmj.e5205.full.pdf

Managing patients with multimorbidity: systematic review of interventions in primary care and community settings.

Chronic health conditions have been on the rise across the world. But few health care systems, have proved able to cope with managing this dramatic increase in chronic conditions. This report from the World Health Organization (WHO) provides a comprehensive framework for the prevention framework for the prevention and management of Chronic health conditions around the world. Chronic health conditions were defined in this report as “health problems that persist across time and require some degree of health care management”. This new report addresses how policy makers can take effective and innovative action to tackle these conditions. The report addresses the following issues: Exploring chronic conditions, including how and why they are increasing, what is their economic impact on patients, families, communities, and governments, and how to reduce their prevalence. The deficits in current systems of health to successfully manage chronic conditions because the acute care model dominates health care systems. The acute care model increased health care expenditures without improving populations health status. A new framework for health care systems to improve care for chronic conditions. This framework is comprised of fundamental components within the patient, health care organization and community, and policy levels. These components were described as “building blocks” that can be used to re-design a health care system to manage long-term health problems more effectively. The report describes eight essential elements for improving and creating innovations in the care of chronic conditions. These elements include: Supporting a shift in attitudes, so that decision­ makers, health workers and patients are aware that a shift in resources from the acute, episodic model of care is needed to meet the different of chronic conditions. Building political commitment to the process of preventing and managing chronic conditions. Avoiding fragmentation of services, to ensure that the care for chronic conditions is integrated. To align and analyze policies which affect chronic conditions, such as agricultural regulations, labor laws and health education. To use new, team care models and evidence-based skills for managing chronic conditions, worth more efficient use of health care personnel. To re-oriented Health care for chronic conditions around the patient and family. To support patients within their communities, because communities can fill a crucial gap in health services that are not provided by organized health care. To emphasize prevention, as many of the complications of chronic conditions can be prevented or reduced. This report provides a well-formulated framework for decision-makers and health service planners to implement strategies for comprehensively managing chronic conditions.

/pdf/innovative-care-for-chronic-conditions-building-blocks-for-2yk23tyhwa.pdf

Innovative care for chronic conditions: building blocks for action

Preventing and ameliorating chronic conditions has long been a priority in the United States; however, the increasing recognition that people often have multiple chronic conditions (MCC) has added a layer of complexity with which to contend. The objective of this study was to present the prevalence of MCC and the most common MCC dyads/triads by selected demographic characteristics. We used respondent-reported data from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to study the US adult civilian noninstitutionalized population aged 18 years or older (n = 27,157). We categorized adults as having 0 to 1, 2 to 3, or 4 or more of the following chronic conditions: hypertension, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, hepatitis, weak or failing kidneys, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or current asthma. We then generated descriptive estimates and tested for significant differences. Twenty-six percent of adults have MCC; the prevalence of MCC has increased from 21.8% in 2001 to 26.0% in 2010. The prevalence of MCC significantly increased with age, was significantly higher among women than men and among non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black adults than Hispanic adults. The most common dyad identified was arthritis and hypertension, and the combination of arthritis, hypertension, and diabetes was the most common triad. The findings of this study contribute information to the field of MCC research. The NHIS can be used to identify population subgroups most likely to have MCC and potentially lead to clinical guidelines for people with more common MCC combinations.

/pdf/prevalence-of-multiple-chronic-conditions-among-us-adults-44haqex4jh.pdf

Prevalence of multiple chronic conditions among US adults: estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2010.

PURPOSE We sought to identify and compare studies reporting the prevalence of multimorbidity and to suggest methodologic aspects to be considered in the conduct of such studies. METHODS We searched the literature for English- and French-language articles published between 1980 and September 2010 that described the prevalence of multimorbidity in the general population, in primary care, or both. We assessed quality of included studies with a modified version of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. Results of individual prevalence studies were adjusted so that they could be compared graphically. RESULTS The final sample included 21 articles: 8 described studies conducted in primary care, 12 in the general population, and 1 in both. All articles were of good quality. The largest differences in prevalence of multimorbidity were observed at age 75 in both primary care (with prevalence ranging from 3.5% to 98.5% across studies) and the general population (with prevalence ranging from 13.1% to 71.8% across studies). Apart from differences in geographic settings, we identified differences in recruitment method and sample size (primary care: 980–60,857 patients; general population: 1,099–316,928 individuals), data collection, and the operational definition of multimorbidity used, including the number of diagnoses considered (primary care: 5 to all; general population: 7 to all). This last aspect seemed to be the most important factor in estimating prevalence. CONCLUSIONS Marked variation exists among studies of the prevalence of multimorbidity with respect to both methodology and findings. When undertaking such studies, investigators should carefully consider the specific diagnoses included and their number, as well as the operational definition of multimorbidity.

https://www.annfammed.org/content/annalsfm/10/2/142.full.pdf

A Systematic Review of Prevalence Studies on Multimorbidity: Toward a More Uniform Methodology

Background In-training evaluation reports (ITERs) often fall short of their goals of promoting resident learning and development. Efforts to address this problem through faculty development and assessment-instrument modification have been disappointing. The authors explored residents' experiences and perceptions of the ITER process to gain insight into why the process succeeds or fails. Method Using a grounded theory approach, semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 residents. Constant comparative analysis for emergent themes was conducted. Results All residents identified aspects of "engagement" in the ITER process as the dominant influence on the success of ITERs. Both external (evaluator-driven, such as evaluator credibility) and internal (resident-driven, such as self-assessment) influences on engagement were elaborated. When engagement was lacking, residents viewed the ITER process as inauthentic. Conclusions Engagement is a critical factor to consider when seeking to improve ITER use. Our articulation of external and internal influences on engagement provides a starting point for targeted interventions.

Rules of engagement: residents' perceptions of the in-training evaluation process.

Background As the population ages, practice and policy need to be guided by accurate estimates of chronic disease burden in primary care. Objective To produce a preliminary set of methodological considerations for cross-sectional and retrospective cohort studies of multi-morbidity in primary care using three studies as examples. Prevalence rate results from the three studies were re-estimated using identical age-sex groups. Methods We compared the methods and results of three separate studies in primary care: (i) patients in the Saguenay region of Quebec, Canada (2005); (ii) a substudy of the BEACH (Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health) programme in Australia (2008); and (iii) the DELPHI (Deliver Primary Health Care Information) project in South-western Ontario, Canada (2009). Areas where the methods of multi-morbidity studies may differ were identified. The percentage of patients with two or more chronic conditions was compared by age-sex groups. Results Multi-morbidity prevalence varied by as much as 61%, where reported prevalence was 95% among females aged 45-64 in the Saguenay study, 46% in the BEACH substudy and 34% in the DELPHI study. Several aspects of the methods and study designs were identified as differing among the studies, including the sampling of frequent attenders, sampling period, source of data, and both the definition and count of chronic conditions. Conclusions Understanding the differences among the methods used to produce prevalence data on multi-morbidity in primary care can help explain the varying results. Standardization of methods would allow for more valid inter-study comparisons.

Comparisons of multi-morbidity in family practice—issues and biases

Objectives Despite the fact that Canadian residency programmes are required to assess trainees' performance within the context of the CanMEDS Roles Framework, there has been no inquiry into the potential relationship between residents' perceptions of the framework and their in-training assessments (ITA). Using data collected during the study of ITA, we explored residents' perceptions of these competencies.

Methods  From May 2006–07, a purposive sample of 20 resident doctors from internal medicine, paediatrics, and surgery were interviewed about their ITA experiences. Data collection and analysis proceeded in an iterative fashion consistent with grounded theory. In April 2008, a summary of recurrent themes was presented during a focus group interview of another five residents to afford further elaboration and refinement of thematic findings.

Results  The in-training assessment report (ITAR) was perceived as a primary source of residents' information on CanMEDS. Residents' familiarity with the set of competencies appeared to be quite limited and they possessed narrow definitions of the roles. Several trainees questioned the framework's relevance and some appeared confused about the overlapping nature of the roles. Although residents viewed the central Medical Expert role as the most relevant and important competency, they incorrectly perceived it as only involving the acquisition of medical and scientific knowledge. A visual rhetorical analysis of a typical ITAR suggests that the visual features found within this assessment tool may be misrepresenting the framework and the centrality of the Medical Expert role.

Conclusions  Resident doctors' knowledge of CanMEDS was found to be limited. The visual structure of the ITAR appears to be a factor in residents' apparent distortion of the CanMEDS construct from its original holistic philosophy.

Heather Maddocks

Papers

A Systematic Review of Prevalence Studies on Multimorbidity: Toward a More Uniform Methodology

Rules of engagement: residents' perceptions of the in-training evaluation process.

Comparisons of multi-morbidity in family practice—issues and biases

The Sum of the Parts Detracts from the Intended Whole: Competencies and In-training Assessments

What are wait times to see a specialist? an analysis of 26,942 referrals in southwestern Ontario.