Lauren E Griffith1, Andrea Gruneir2, Kathryn A Fisher3, Kathryn Nicholson1, Dilzayn Panjwani4, Christopher Patterson5, Maureen Markle-Reid3, Jenny Ploeg3, Arlene S Bierman6, David B Hogan7, Ross Upshur8. 1. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Family Medicine, Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 3. School of Nursing, and Aging, Community and Health Research Unit, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 4. Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 6. Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, USA. 7. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 8. Division of Clinical Public Health, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are multiple multimorbidity measures but little consensus on which measures are most appropriate for different circumstances. OBJECTIVE: To share insights gained from discussions with experts in the fields of ageing research and multimorbidity on key factors to consider when measuring multimorbidity. DESIGN: Descriptive study of expert opinions on multimorbidity measures, informed by literature to identify available measures followed by a face-to-face meeting and an online survey. RESULTS: The expert group included clinicians, researchers and policymakers in Canada with expertise in the fields of multimorbidity and ageing. Of the 30 experts invited, 15 (50%) attended the in-person meeting and 14 (47%) responded to the subsequent online survey. Experts agreed that there is no single multimorbidity measure that is suitable for all research studies. They cited a number of factors that need to be considered in selecting a measure for use in a research study including: (1) fit with the study purpose; (2) the conditions included in multimorbidity measures; (3) the role of episodic conditions or diseases; and (4) the role of social factors and other concepts missing in existing approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The suitability of existing multimorbidity measures for use in a specific research study depends on factors such as the purpose of the study, outcomes examined and preferences of the involved stakeholders. The results of this study suggest that there are areas that require further building out in both the conceptualization and measurement of multimorbidity for the benefit of future clinical, research and policy decisions.
BACKGROUND: There are multiple multimorbidity measures but little consensus on which measures are most appropriate for different circumstances. OBJECTIVE: To share insights gained from discussions with experts in the fields of ageing research and multimorbidity on key factors to consider when measuring multimorbidity. DESIGN: Descriptive study of expert opinions on multimorbidity measures, informed by literature to identify available measures followed by a face-to-face meeting and an online survey. RESULTS: The expert group included clinicians, researchers and policymakers in Canada with expertise in the fields of multimorbidity and ageing. Of the 30 experts invited, 15 (50%) attended the in-person meeting and 14 (47%) responded to the subsequent online survey. Experts agreed that there is no single multimorbidity measure that is suitable for all research studies. They cited a number of factors that need to be considered in selecting a measure for use in a research study including: (1) fit with the study purpose; (2) the conditions included in multimorbidity measures; (3) the role of episodic conditions or diseases; and (4) the role of social factors and other concepts missing in existing approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The suitability of existing multimorbidity measures for use in a specific research study depends on factors such as the purpose of the study, outcomes examined and preferences of the involved stakeholders. The results of this study suggest that there are areas that require further building out in both the conceptualization and measurement of multimorbidity for the benefit of future clinical, research and policy decisions.
Authors: Karen Barnett; Stewart W Mercer; Michael Norbury; Graham Watt; Sally Wyke; Bruce Guthrie Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Richard A Goodman; Samuel F Posner; Elbert S Huang; Anand K Parekh; Howard K Koh Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Calypse B Agborsangaya; Darren Lau; Markus Lahtinen; Tim Cooke; Jeffrey A Johnson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-03-19 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Alexis K Schaink; Kerry Kuluski; Renée F Lyons; Martin Fortin; Alejandro R Jadad; Ross Upshur; Walter P Wodchis Journal: J Comorb Date: 2012-10-10
Authors: Moira Stewart; Martin Fortin; Helena C Britt; Christopher M Harrison; Heather L Maddocks Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2013-05-10 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Tora Grauers Willadsen; Anna Bebe; Rasmus Køster-Rasmussen; Dorte Ejg Jarbøl; Ann Dorrit Guassora; Frans Boch Waldorff; Susanne Reventlow; Niels de Fine Olivarius Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Toni Tripp-Reimer; Janet K Williams; Sue E Gardner; Barbara Rakel; Keela Herr; Ann Marie McCarthy; Linda Liu Hand; Stephanie Gilbertson-White; Catherine Cherwin Journal: Nurs Outlook Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Jerry Suls; Elizabeth A Bayliss; Jay Berry; Arlene S Bierman; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Tilda Farhat; Martin Fortin; Siran M Koroukian; Ana Quinones; Jeffrey H Silber; Brian W Ward; Melissa Wei; Deborah Young-Hyman; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: Med Care Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Kathryn A Fisher; Lauren E Griffith; Andrea Gruneir; Ross Upshur; Richard Perez; Lindsay Favotto; Francis Nguyen; Maureen Markle-Reid; Jenny Ploeg Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Eric Yuk Fai Wan; Weng Yee Chin; Esther Yee Tak Yu; Julie Chen; Emily Tsui Yee Tse; Carlos King Ho Wong; Tony King Hang Ha; David Vai Kiong Chao; Wendy Wing Sze Tsui; Cindy Lo Kuen Lam Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Zhuoyu Wang; Laurence Boulanger; David Berger; Pierrette Gaudreau; Ruth Ann Marrie; Brian Potter; Andrew Wister; Christina Wolfson; Genevieve Lefebvre; Marie-Pierre Sylvestre; M Keezer Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 2.692