BACKGROUND: Accounting for the influence of concurrent conditions on health and functional status for both research and clinical decision-making purposes is especially important in older adults. Although approaches to classifying severity of individual diseases and conditions have been developed, the utility of these classification systems has not been evaluated in the presence of multiple conditions. METHODS: We present a framework for evaluating severity classification systems for common chronic diseases. The framework evaluates the: (a) goal or purpose of the classification system; (b) physiological and/or functional criteria for severity graduation; and (c) potential reliability and validity of the system balanced against burden and costs associated with classification. RESULTS: Approaches to severity classification of individual diseases were not originally conceived for the study of comorbidity. Therefore, they vary greatly in terms of objectives, physiological systems covered, level of severity characterization, reliability and validity, and costs and burdens. Using different severity classification systems to account for differing levels of disease severity in a patient with multiple diseases, or, assessing global disease burden may be challenging. CONCLUSIONS: Most approaches to severity classification are not adequate to address comorbidity. Nevertheless, thoughtful use of some existing approaches and refinement of others may advance the study of comorbidity and diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to patients with multimorbidity.
BACKGROUND: Accounting for the influence of concurrent conditions on health and functional status for both research and clinical decision-making purposes is especially important in older adults. Although approaches to classifying severity of individual diseases and conditions have been developed, the utility of these classification systems has not been evaluated in the presence of multiple conditions. METHODS: We present a framework for evaluating severity classification systems for common chronic diseases. The framework evaluates the: (a) goal or purpose of the classification system; (b) physiological and/or functional criteria for severity graduation; and (c) potential reliability and validity of the system balanced against burden and costs associated with classification. RESULTS: Approaches to severity classification of individual diseases were not originally conceived for the study of comorbidity. Therefore, they vary greatly in terms of objectives, physiological systems covered, level of severity characterization, reliability and validity, and costs and burdens. Using different severity classification systems to account for differing levels of disease severity in a patient with multiple diseases, or, assessing global disease burden may be challenging. CONCLUSIONS: Most approaches to severity classification are not adequate to address comorbidity. Nevertheless, thoughtful use of some existing approaches and refinement of others may advance the study of comorbidity and diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to patients with multimorbidity.
Authors: Rosemary Yancik; William Ershler; William Satariano; William Hazzard; Harvey J Cohen; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Supriya Gupta Mohile; Ying Xian; William Dale; Susan G Fisher; Miriam Rodin; Gary R Morrow; Alfred Neugut; William Hall Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Cynthia M Boyd; Christine S Ritchie; Edmond F Tipton; Stephanie A Studenski; Darryl Wieland Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Ana R Quiñones; Heather G Allore; Anda Botoseneanu; Jason T Newsom; Corey L Nagel; David A Dorr Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Leonardo M Fabbri; Cynthia Boyd; Piera Boschetto; Klaus F Rabe; A Sonia Buist; Barbara Yawn; Bruce Leff; David M Kent; Holger J Schünemann Journal: Proc Am Thorac Soc Date: 2012-12
Authors: Carlos O Weiss; Ravi Varadhan; Milo A Puhan; Andrew Vickers; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Cynthia M Boyd; David M Kent Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-01-18 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Thomas P Ahern; Jaclyn Lf Bosco; Rebecca A Silliman; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Terry S Field; Feifei Wei; Timothy L Lash Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-08-09 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Hendrik van den Bussche; Daniela Koller; Tina Kolonko; Heike Hansen; Karl Wegscheider; Gerd Glaeske; Eike-Christin von Leitner; Ingmar Schäfer; Gerhard Schön Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-02-14 Impact factor: 3.295