PURPOSE: Many patients consulting in primary care have multiple conditions (multimorbidity). Aims of this review were to identify measures of multimorbidity and morbidity burden suitable for use in research in primary care and community populations, and to investigate their validity in relation to anticipated associations with patient characteristics, process measures, and health outcomes. METHODS: Studies were identified using searches in MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to December 2009 and bibliographies. RESULTS: Included were 194 articles describing 17 different measures. Commonly used measures included disease counts (n = 98), Chronic Disease Score (CDS)/RxRisk (n = 17), Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) System (n = 25), the Charlson index (n = 38), the Cumulative Index Illness Rating Scale (CIRS; n = 10) and the Duke Severity of Illness Checklist (DUSOI; n = 6). Studies that compared measures suggest their predictive validity for the same outcome differs only slightly. Evidence is strongest for the ACG System, Charlson index, or disease counts in relation to care utilization; for the ACG System in relation to costs; for Charlson index in relation to mortality; and for disease counts or Charlson index in relation to quality of life. Simple counts of diseases or medications perform almost as well as complex measures in predicting most outcomes. Combining measures can improve validity. CONCLUSIONS: The measures most commonly used in primary care and community settings are disease counts, Charlson index, ACG System, CIRS, CDS, and DUSOI. Different measures are most appropriate according to the outcome of interest. Choice of measure will also depend on the type of data available. More research is needed to directly compare performance of different measures.
PURPOSE: Many patients consulting in primary care have multiple conditions (multimorbidity). Aims of this review were to identify measures of multimorbidity and morbidity burden suitable for use in research in primary care and community populations, and to investigate their validity in relation to anticipated associations with patient characteristics, process measures, and health outcomes. METHODS: Studies were identified using searches in MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to December 2009 and bibliographies. RESULTS: Included were 194 articles describing 17 different measures. Commonly used measures included disease counts (n = 98), Chronic Disease Score (CDS)/RxRisk (n = 17), Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) System (n = 25), the Charlson index (n = 38), the Cumulative Index Illness Rating Scale (CIRS; n = 10) and the Duke Severity of Illness Checklist (DUSOI; n = 6). Studies that compared measures suggest their predictive validity for the same outcome differs only slightly. Evidence is strongest for the ACG System, Charlson index, or disease counts in relation to care utilization; for the ACG System in relation to costs; for Charlson index in relation to mortality; and for disease counts or Charlson index in relation to quality of life. Simple counts of diseases or medications perform almost as well as complex measures in predicting most outcomes. Combining measures can improve validity. CONCLUSIONS: The measures most commonly used in primary care and community settings are disease counts, Charlson index, ACG System, CIRS, CDS, and DUSOI. Different measures are most appropriate according to the outcome of interest. Choice of measure will also depend on the type of data available. More research is needed to directly compare performance of different measures.
Authors: David A Dorr; Spencer S Jones; Laurie Burns; Steven M Donnelly; Cherie P Brunker; Adam Wilcox; Paul D Clayton Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Johnson George; Tam Vuong; Michael J Bailey; David Cm Kong; Jennifer L Marriott; Kay Stewart Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2006-03-28 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Cathy C Schubert; Malaz Boustani; Christopher M Callahan; Anthony J Perkins; Caroline P Carney; Christopher Fox; Frederick Unverzagt; Siu Hui; Hugh C Hendrie Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Martin Fortin; Gina Bravo; Catherine Hudon; Lise Lapointe; Marie-France Dubois; José Almirall Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2006 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Martin Fortin; Catherine Hudon; Marie-France Dubois; José Almirall; Lise Lapointe; Hassan Soubhi Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2005-11-23 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Bruno Pereira Nunes; Fabio Alberto Camargo-Figuera; Marília Guttier; Paula Duarte de Oliveira; Tiago N Munhoz; Alicia Matijasevich; Andréa Dâmaso Bertoldi; Fernando César Wehrmeister; Marysabel Pinto Telis Silveira; Elaine Thumé; Luiz Augusto Facchini Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Casey Overby Taylor; Klaus W Lemke; Thomas M Richards; Kenneth D Roe; Ting He; Adelaide Arruda-Olson; David Carrell; Joshua C Denny; George Hripcsak; Krzysztof Kiryluk; Iftikhar Kullo; Eric B Larson; Peggy Peissig; Nephi A Walton; Wei Wei-Qi; Zi Ye; Christopher G Chute; Jonathan P Weiner Journal: AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc Date: 2019-05-06
Authors: Davangere P Devanand; Seonjoo Lee; Jennifer Manly; Howard Andrews; Nicole Schupf; Arjun Masurkar; Yaakov Stern; Richard Mayeux; Richard L Doty Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Tom Brett; Diane Elizabeth Arnold-Reed; Aurora Popescu; Bishoy Soliman; Max Kishor Bulsara; Hilary Fine; Geoff Bovell; Robert George Moorhead Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.166