BACKGROUND: Primary care increasingly deals with patients with multimorbidity, but relevant evidence-based interventions are scarce. Knowledge about multimorbidity over time is required to inform the development of effective interventions. AIM: This review identifies prospective cohort studies of multimorbidity in primary care to determine: their nature, scope and key findings; the methodologies used; and gaps in knowledge. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHOD: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases, reviewing citations, and writing to authors. Searches were limited to adult populations with no restrictions on publication date or language. In total, 996 articles were identified and screened. RESULTS: Of the 996 articles, six detailing five completed prospective cohort studies were selected as appropriate. Three of the studies were undertaken in the US and two in The Netherlands; none was nationally representative. The main focus of the studies was: healthcare utilisation and/or costs (n = 3); patients' physical functioning (n = 1); and risk factors for developing multimorbidity (n = 1). The conditions that were included varied widely. The findings of these studies showed that multimorbidity increased healthcare costs (n = 2), inpatient admission (n = 1), death rates (n = 1), and service use (n = 3), and reduced physical functioning (n = 1). One study identified psychosocial risk factors for multimorbidity. No study used random sampling, sample sizes were relatively small (414-3745 patients at baseline), and study duration was relatively short (1-4 years). No study focused on prevalence, treatment use, patient safety, service models, cultural or socioeconomic factors, and patient experience, and no study collected qualitative data. CONCLUSION: Few longitudinal studies based in primary care have investigated multimorbidity. Further large, long-term prospective studies are required to inform healthcare commissioning, planning, and delivery.
BACKGROUND: Primary care increasingly deals with patients with multimorbidity, but relevant evidence-based interventions are scarce. Knowledge about multimorbidity over time is required to inform the development of effective interventions. AIM: This review identifies prospective cohort studies of multimorbidity in primary care to determine: their nature, scope and key findings; the methodologies used; and gaps in knowledge. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHOD: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases, reviewing citations, and writing to authors. Searches were limited to adult populations with no restrictions on publication date or language. In total, 996 articles were identified and screened. RESULTS: Of the 996 articles, six detailing five completed prospective cohort studies were selected as appropriate. Three of the studies were undertaken in the US and two in The Netherlands; none was nationally representative. The main focus of the studies was: healthcare utilisation and/or costs (n = 3); patients' physical functioning (n = 1); and risk factors for developing multimorbidity (n = 1). The conditions that were included varied widely. The findings of these studies showed that multimorbidity increased healthcare costs (n = 2), inpatient admission (n = 1), death rates (n = 1), and service use (n = 3), and reduced physical functioning (n = 1). One study identified psychosocial risk factors for multimorbidity. No study used random sampling, sample sizes were relatively small (414-3745 patients at baseline), and study duration was relatively short (1-4 years). No study focused on prevalence, treatment use, patient safety, service models, cultural or socioeconomic factors, and patient experience, and no study collected qualitative data. CONCLUSION: Few longitudinal studies based in primary care have investigated multimorbidity. Further large, long-term prospective studies are required to inform healthcare commissioning, planning, and delivery.
Authors: Liam G Glynn; Jose M Valderas; Pamela Healy; Evelyn Burke; John Newell; Patrick Gillespie; Andrew W Murphy Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Marjan van den Akker; Mark G Spigt; Lore De Raeve; Ben van Steenkiste; Job F M Metsemakers; Ernst J van Voorst; Hein de Vries Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2008-01-21 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Rein Vos; Sil Aarts; Erik van Mulligen; Job Metsemakers; Martin P van Boxtel; Frans Verhey; Marjan van den Akker Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Ron Z Goetzel; Enid Chung Roemer; Calliope Holingue; M Daniele Fallin; Katherine McCleary; William Eaton; Jacqueline Agnew; Francisca Azocar; David Ballard; John Bartlett; Michael Braga; Heidi Conway; K Andrew Crighton; Richard Frank; Kim Jinnett; Debra Keller-Greene; Sara Martin Rauch; Richard Safeer; Dick Saporito; Anita Schill; David Shern; Victor Strecher; Peter Wald; Philip Wang; C Richard Mattingly Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Eindra Aung; Maria Donald; Joseph Coll; Jo Dower; Gail M Williams; Suhail A R Doi Journal: Health Expect Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Luke T A Mounce; John L Campbell; William E Henley; Maria C Tejerina Arreal; Ian Porter; Jose M Valderas Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 5.166