Examining different measures of multimorbidity, using a large prospective cross-sectional study in Australian general practice
Objectives Prevalence estimates of multimorbidity vary widely due to inconsistent definitions and measurement methods. This study examines the independent effects on prevalence estimates of how ‘disease entity’ is defined—as a single chronic condition or chapters/domains in the International Classif...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2014-07-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/7/e004694.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832087060941373440 |
|---|---|
| author | Christopher Harrison Helena Britt Graeme Miller Joan Henderson |
| author_facet | Christopher Harrison Helena Britt Graeme Miller Joan Henderson |
| author_sort | Christopher Harrison |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives Prevalence estimates of multimorbidity vary widely due to inconsistent definitions and measurement methods. This study examines the independent effects on prevalence estimates of how ‘disease entity’ is defined—as a single chronic condition or chapters/domains in the International Classification of Primary Care (V.2; ICPC-2), International Classification of Disease (10th revision; ICD-10) or the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), the number of disease entities required for multimorbidity, and the number of chronic conditions studied.Design National prospective cross-sectional study.Setting Australian general practice.Participants 8707 random consenting deidentified patient encounters with 290 randomly selected general practitioners.Main outcome measures Prevalence estimates of multimorbidity using different definitions.Results Data classified to ICPC-2 chapters, ICD-10 chapters or CIRS domains produce similar multimorbidity prevalence estimates. When multimorbidity was defined as two or more (2+) disease entities: counting individual chronic conditions and groups of chronic conditions produced similar estimates; the 12 most prevalent chronic conditions identified about 80% of those identified using all chronic conditions. When multimorbidity was defined as 3+ disease entities: counting individual chronic conditions produced significantly higher estimates than counting groups of chronic conditions; the 12 most prevalent chronic conditions identified only two-thirds of patients identified using all chronic conditions.Conclusions Multimorbidity defined as 2+ disease entities can be measured using different definitions of disease entity with as few as 12 prevalent chronic conditions, but lacks specificity to be useful, especially in older people. Multimorbidity, defined as 3+, requires more measurement conformity and inclusion of all chronic conditions, but provides greater specificity than the 2+ definition. The proposed concept of “complex multimorbidity”, the co-occurrence of three or more chronic conditions affecting three or more different body systems within one person without defining an index chronic condition, may be useful in identifying high-need individuals. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-d4c07b9d722b432eb2802e9e5def581d |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2014-07-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-d4c07b9d722b432eb2802e9e5def581d2025-02-06T07:30:09ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552014-07-014710.1136/bmjopen-2013-004694Examining different measures of multimorbidity, using a large prospective cross-sectional study in Australian general practiceChristopher Harrison0Helena BrittGraeme MillerJoan HendersonMenzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaObjectives Prevalence estimates of multimorbidity vary widely due to inconsistent definitions and measurement methods. This study examines the independent effects on prevalence estimates of how ‘disease entity’ is defined—as a single chronic condition or chapters/domains in the International Classification of Primary Care (V.2; ICPC-2), International Classification of Disease (10th revision; ICD-10) or the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), the number of disease entities required for multimorbidity, and the number of chronic conditions studied.Design National prospective cross-sectional study.Setting Australian general practice.Participants 8707 random consenting deidentified patient encounters with 290 randomly selected general practitioners.Main outcome measures Prevalence estimates of multimorbidity using different definitions.Results Data classified to ICPC-2 chapters, ICD-10 chapters or CIRS domains produce similar multimorbidity prevalence estimates. When multimorbidity was defined as two or more (2+) disease entities: counting individual chronic conditions and groups of chronic conditions produced similar estimates; the 12 most prevalent chronic conditions identified about 80% of those identified using all chronic conditions. When multimorbidity was defined as 3+ disease entities: counting individual chronic conditions produced significantly higher estimates than counting groups of chronic conditions; the 12 most prevalent chronic conditions identified only two-thirds of patients identified using all chronic conditions.Conclusions Multimorbidity defined as 2+ disease entities can be measured using different definitions of disease entity with as few as 12 prevalent chronic conditions, but lacks specificity to be useful, especially in older people. Multimorbidity, defined as 3+, requires more measurement conformity and inclusion of all chronic conditions, but provides greater specificity than the 2+ definition. The proposed concept of “complex multimorbidity”, the co-occurrence of three or more chronic conditions affecting three or more different body systems within one person without defining an index chronic condition, may be useful in identifying high-need individuals.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/7/e004694.full |
| spellingShingle | Christopher Harrison Helena Britt Graeme Miller Joan Henderson Examining different measures of multimorbidity, using a large prospective cross-sectional study in Australian general practice BMJ Open |
| title | Examining different measures of multimorbidity, using a large prospective cross-sectional study in Australian general practice |
| title_full | Examining different measures of multimorbidity, using a large prospective cross-sectional study in Australian general practice |
| title_fullStr | Examining different measures of multimorbidity, using a large prospective cross-sectional study in Australian general practice |
| title_full_unstemmed | Examining different measures of multimorbidity, using a large prospective cross-sectional study in Australian general practice |
| title_short | Examining different measures of multimorbidity, using a large prospective cross-sectional study in Australian general practice |
| title_sort | examining different measures of multimorbidity using a large prospective cross sectional study in australian general practice |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/7/e004694.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT christopherharrison examiningdifferentmeasuresofmultimorbidityusingalargeprospectivecrosssectionalstudyinaustraliangeneralpractice AT helenabritt examiningdifferentmeasuresofmultimorbidityusingalargeprospectivecrosssectionalstudyinaustraliangeneralpractice AT graememiller examiningdifferentmeasuresofmultimorbidityusingalargeprospectivecrosssectionalstudyinaustraliangeneralpractice AT joanhenderson examiningdifferentmeasuresofmultimorbidityusingalargeprospectivecrosssectionalstudyinaustraliangeneralpractice |