Search

OBJECTIVE: (1) To estimate the pooled prevalence of multimorbidity in all age groups, globally. (2) To examine how measurement of multimorbidity impacted the estimated prevalence. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we conducted searches in nine bibliographic databases (PsycINFO, Embase, Global Health, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global) for prevalence studies published between database inception and 21 January 2020. Studies reporting the prevalence of multimorbidity (in all age groups and in community, primary care, care home and hospital settings) were included. Studies with an index condition or those that did not include people with no long-term conditions in the denominator were excluded. Retrieved studies were independently reviewed by two reviewers, and relevant data were extracted using predesigned pro forma. We used meta-analysis to pool the estimated prevalence of multimorbidity across studies, and used random-effects meta-regression and subgroup analysis to examine the association of heterogeneous prevalence estimates with study and measure characteristics. RESULTS: 13 807 titles were screened, of which 193 met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of multimorbidity was 42.4% (95% CI 38.9% to 46.0%) with high heterogeneity (I2 >99%). In adjusted meta-regression models, participant mean age and the number of conditions included in a measure accounted for 47.8% of heterogeneity in effect sizes. The estimated prevalence of multimorbidity was significantly higher in studies with older adults and those that included larger numbers of conditions. There was no significant difference in estimated prevalence between low-income or middle-income countries (36.8%) and high-income countries (44.3%), or between self-report (40.0%) and administrative/clinical databases (52.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The pooled prevalence of multimorbidity was significantly higher in older

OBJECTIVE: To develop international consensus on the definition and measurement of multimorbidity in research. DESIGN: Delphi consensus study. SETTING: International consensus; data collected in three online rounds from participants between 30 November 2020 and 18 May 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Professionals interested in multimorbidity and people with long term conditions were recruited to professional and public panels. RESULTS: 150 professional and 25 public participants completed the first survey round. Response rates for rounds 2/3 were 83%/92% for professionals and 88%/93% in the public panel, respectively. Across both panels, the consensus was that multimorbidity should be defined as two or more long term conditions. Complex multimorbidity was perceived to be a useful concept, but the panels were unable to agree on how to define it. Both panels agreed that conditions should be included in a multimorbidity measure if they were one or more of the following: currently active; permanent in their effects; requiring current treatment, care, or therapy; requiring surveillance; or relapsing-remitting conditions requiring ongoing care. Consensus was reached for 24 conditions to always include in multimorbidity measures, and 35 conditions to usually include unless a good reason not to existed. Simple counts were preferred for estimating prevalence and examining clustering or trajectories, and weighted measures were preferred for risk adjustment and outcome prediction. CONCLUSIONS: Previous multimorbidity research is limited by inconsistent definitions and approaches to measuring multimorbidity. This Delphi study identifies professional and public panel consensus guidance to facilitate consistency of definition and measurement, and to improve study comparability and reproducibility.

BACKGROUND: Population health has stagnated or is declining in many high-income countries. We analysed whether nationally administered austerity cuts in England were associated with prevalence of multimorbidity (individuals with two or more long-term conditions) and health-related quality of life. METHODS: We conducted an observational, longitudinal study on 147 local authorities in England. We examined associations of changes in spending over time (2009/10-2017/18), in total and by budget line, with (i) prevalence of multimorbidity, 2+ conditions (2011/12-2017/18), and (ii) health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) score (2012/13-2016/17). We estimated linear, log-log regression models, incorporating local authority fixed-effects, time-varying demographic and socio-economic confounders, and time trends. FINDINGS: All local authorities experienced real spending cuts, varying from 42% (Barking and Dagenham) to 0·3% (Sefton). A 1% cut in per capita total service expenditure was associated with a 0·10% (95% CI 0·03 to 0·16) increase in prevalence of multimorbidity. We found no association (0·003%; 95% CI -0·01 to 0·01) with health-related quality of life. By budget line, after controlling for other spending, a 1% cut in public health expenditure was associated with a 0·15% (95% CI 0·11 to 0·20) increase in prevalence of multimorbidity, and a 1% cut in adult social care expenditure was associated with a 0·01% (95% CI 0·002 to 0·02) decrease in average health-related quality of life. INTERPRETATION: Fiscal austerity is associated with worse multimorbidity and health-related quality of life. Policymakers should consider the potential health consequences of local government expenditure cuts and knock-on effects for health systems. FUNDING: Medical Research Council.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multimorbidities have the greatest healthcare needs and generate the highest expenditure in the health system. There is an increasing focus on identifying specific disease combinations for addressing poor outcomes. Existing research has identified a small number of prevalent "clusters" in the general population, but the limited number examined might oversimplify the problem and these may not be the ones associated with important outcomes. Combinations with the highest (potentially preventable) secondary care costs may reveal priority targets for intervention or prevention. We aimed to examine the potential of defining multimorbidity clusters for impacting secondary care costs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used national, Hospital Episode Statistics, data from all hospital admissions in England from 2017/2018 (cohort of over 8 million patients) and defined multimorbidity based on ICD-10 codes for 28 chronic conditions (we backfilled conditions from 2009/2010 to address potential undercoding). We identified the combinations of multimorbidity which contributed to the highest total current and previous 5-year costs of secondary care and costs of potentially preventable emergency hospital admissions in aggregate and per patient. We examined the distribution of costs across unique disease combinations to test the potential of the cluster approach for targeting interventions at high costs. We then estimated the overlap between the unique combinations to test potential of the cluster approach for targeting prevention of accumulated disease. We examined variability in the ranks and distributions across age (over/under 65) and deprivation (area level, deciles) subgroups and sensitivity to considering a smaller number of diseases. There were 8,440,133 unique patients in our sample, over 4 million (53.1%) were female, and over 3 million (37.7%) were aged over 65 years. No clear "high cost" combinations of multimorbidity emerged as possible targets for inter

BACKGROUND: A systematic understanding of how multimorbidity has been constructed and measured is unavailable. This review aimed to examine the definition and measurement of multimorbidity in peer-reviewed studies internationally. METHODS: We systematically reviewed studies on multimorbidity, via a search of nine bibliographic databases (Ovid [PsycINFO, Embase, Global Health, and MEDLINE], Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global), from inception to Jan 21, 2020. Reference lists and tracked citations of retrieved articles were hand-searched. Eligible studies were full-text articles measuring multimorbidity for any purpose in community, primary care, care home, or hospital populations receiving a non-specialist service. Abstracts, qualitative research, and case series were excluded. Two reviewers independently reviewed the retrieved studies with conflicts resolved by discussion or a third reviewer, and a single researcher extracted data from published papers. To assess our objectives of how multimorbidity has been measured and examine variation in the chronic conditions included (in terms of number and type), we used descriptive analysis (frequencies, cross-tabulation, and negative binomial regression) to summarise the characteristics of multimorbidity studies and measures (study setting, source of morbidity data, study population, primary study purpose, and multimorbidity measure type). This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD420201724090. FINDINGS: 566 studies were included in our review, of which 206 (36·4%) did not report a reference definition for multimorbidity and 73 (12·9%) did not report the conditions their measure included. The number of conditions included in measures ranged from two to 285 (median 17 [IQR 11-23). 452 (79·9%) studies reported types of condition within a single multimorbidity measure; most included at least one cardiovascular condition (441 [97·6%] of 452 studies)

OBJECTIVES: The UK faces major problems in retaining general practitioners (GPs). Scotland introduced a new GP contract in April 2018, intended to better support GPs. This study compares the career intentions and working lives of GPs in Scotland with GPs in England, shortly after the new Scotland contract was introduced. DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparison of cross-sectional analysis of survey responses of GPs in England and Scotland in 2017 and 2018, respectively, using linear regression to adjust the differences for gender, age, ethnicity, urbanicity and deprivation. PARTICIPANTS: 2048 GPs in Scotland and 879 GPs in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Four intentions to reduce work participation (5-point scales: 1='none', 5='high'): reducing working hours; leaving medical work entirely; leaving direct patient care; or continuing medical work but outside the UK. Four domains of working life: job satisfaction (7-point scale: 1='extremely dissatisfied', 7='extremely satisfied'); job stressors (5-point-scale: 1='no pressure', 5='high pressure); positive and negative job attributes (5-point scales: 1='strongly disagree', 5='strongly agree'). RESULTS: Compared with England, GPs in Scotland had lower intention to reduce work participation, including a lower likelihood of reducing work hours (2.78 vs 3.54; adjusted difference=-0.52; 95% CI -0.64 to -0.41), a lower likelihood of leaving medical work entirely (2.11 vs 2.76; adjusted difference=-0.32; 95% CI -0.42 to -0.22), a lower likelihood of leaving direct patient care (2.23 vs 2.93; adjusted difference=-0.37; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.27), and a lower likelihood of continuing medical work but outside of the UK (1.41 vs 1.61; adjusted difference=-0.2; 95% CI -0.28 to -0.12). GPs in Scotland reported higher job satisfaction, lower job stressors, similar positive job attributes and lower negative job attributes. CONCLUSION: Following the introduction of the new contract in Scotland, GPs in Scotland reported significantly better working l