Dataset Information

The prevalence of multimorbidity in primary care: a comparison of two definitions of multimorbidity with two different lists of chronic conditions in Singapore.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The prevalence of multimorbidity varies widely due to the lack of consensus in defining multimorbidity. This study aimed to measure the prevalence of multimorbidity in a primary care setting using two definitions of multimorbidity with two different lists of chronic conditions.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study of 787,446 patients, aged 0 to 99 years, who consulted a family physician between July 2015 to June 2016. Multimorbidity was defined as 'two or more' (MM2+) or 'three or more' (MM3+) chronic conditions using the Fortin list and Chronic Disease Management Program (CDMP) list of chronic conditions. Crude and standardised prevalence rates were reported, and the corresponding age, sex or ethnic-stratified standardised prevalence rates were adjusted to the local population census.

Results

The number of patients with multimorbidity increased with age. Age-sex-ethnicity standardised prevalence rates of multimorbidity using MM2+ and MM3+ for Fortin list (25.9, 17.2%) were higher than those for CDMP list (22.0%; 12.4%). Sex-stratified, age-ethnicity standardised prevalence rates for MM2+ and MM3+ were consistently higher in males compared to females for both lists. Chinese and Indians have the highest standardised prevalence rates among the four ethnicities using MM2+ and MM3+ respectively.

Conclusions

MM3+ was better at identifying a smaller number of patients with multimorbidity requiring higher needs compared to MM2+. Using the Fortin list seemed more appropriate than the CDMP list because the chronic conditions in Fortin's list were more commonly seen in primary care. A consistent definition of multimorbidity will help researchers and clinicians to understand the epidemiology of multimorbidity better.

SUBMITTER: Lee ES

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8283957 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMultimorbidity is common among general practice patients and increases a general practitioner's (GP's) workload. But the extent of multimorbidity may depend on its definition and whether a time delimiter is included in the definition or not.AimsThe aims of the study were (1) to compare practice prevalence rates yielded by different models of multimorbidity, (2) to determine how a time delimiter influences the prevalence rates and (3) to assess the effects of multimorbidity on the number of direct and indirect patient contacts as an indicator of doctors' workload.MethodsThis retrospective observational study used electronic medical records from 142 German general practices, covering 13 years from 1994 to 2007. The four models of multimorbidity ranged from a simple definition, requiring only two diseases, to an advanced definition requiring at least three chronic conditions. We also included a time delimiter for the definition of multimorbidity. Descriptive statistics, such as means and correlation coefficients, were applied.FindingsThe annual percentage of multimorbid primary care patients ranged between 84% (simple model) and 16% (advanced model) and between 74% and 13% if a time delimiter was included. Multimorbid patients had about twice as many contacts annually than the remainder. The number of contacts were different for each model, but the ratio remained similar. The number of contacts correlated moderately with patient age (r = 0.35). The correlation between age and multimorbidity increased from model to model up to 0.28 while the correlations between contacts and multimorbidity varied around 0.2 in all four models.ConclusionMultimorbidity seems to be less prevalent in primary care practices than usually estimated if advanced definitions of multimorbidity and a temporal delimiter are applied. Although multimorbidity increases in any model a doctor's workload, it is especially the older person with multiple chronic diseases who is a challenge for the GP.

Project description:BackgroundMetabolic syndrome (MetS) is a public health problem in Europe, affecting all age groups. Several MetS definitions are available. The aim of this study was to compare four different MetS definitions in the Finnish adult population, to assess their agreement and to evaluate the impact of the choice of the definition on the prevalence of MetS.MethodsData from FinHealth 2017, a cross-sectional national population health survey, focusing on adults aged 25 years or older were used in the analysis (n=5687). Measured data on anthropometrics, blood pressure and biomarkers together with questionnaire data were used to classify the participants into the MetS categories according to the four definitions. The definitions chosen for the comparison were those by the World Health Organization (WHO) (1998), National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP-ATP III) (2004), International Diabetes Federation (IDF) (2005), and Joint Interim Statement (JIS) (2009).ResultsThe four MetS definitions resulted in substantially different MetS prevalence: 17.7% by WHO, 33.3% by NCEP-ATP III, 41.5% by IDF, and 43.0% by JIS. Regardless of the definition used, the prevalence of MetS increased with age. The prevalence of the different components varied between the definitions, depending on the different cut-off points adopted. Out of all participants, only 13.6% were identified to have MetS according to all four definitions. Agreement between participants recognised by different MetS definitions, estimated through kappa coefficients, was almost perfect for IDF vs. JIS (0.97), strong for JIS vs. NCEP-ATP III (0.80), moderate for IDF vs. NCEP-ATP III (0.76) and weak for WHO vs. NCEP-ATP III (0.42), WHO vs. IDF (0.41) and WHO vs. JIS (0.40).ConclusionsDifferences between observed prevalence of MetS in Finnish men and women using different MetS definitions were large. For cross-country comparisons, as well as for trend analyses within a country, it is essential to use the same MetS definition to avoid discrepancies in classification due to differences in used definitions.

Project description:PurposeMultimorbidity is commonly defined and measured using condition counts. The UK National Institute for Health Care Excellence Guidelines for Multimorbidity suggest that a medication-orientated approach could be used to identify those in need of a multimorbidity approach to management.ObjectivesTo compare the accuracy of medication-based and diagnosis-based multimorbidity measures at higher cut-points to identify older community-dwelling patients who are at risk of poorer health outcomes.DesignA secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study with a 2-year follow-up (2010-2012).Setting15 general practices in Ireland.Participants904 older community-dwelling patients.ExposureBaseline multimorbidity measurements based on both medication classes count (MCC) and chronic disease count (CDC).OutcomesMortality, self-reported health related quality of life, mental health and physical functioning at follow-up.AnalysisSensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) adjusting for clustering by practice for each outcome using both definitions.ResultsOf the 904 baseline participants, 53 died during follow-up and 673 patients completed the follow-up questionnaire. At baseline, 223 patients had 3 or more chronic conditions and 89 patients were prescribed 10 or more medication classes. Sensitivity was low for both MCC and CDC measures for all outcomes. For specificity, MCC was better for all outcomes with estimates varying from 88.8% (95% CI 85.2% to 91.6%) for physical functioning to 90.9% (95% CI 86.2% to 94.1%) for self-reported health-related quality of life. There were no differences between MCC and CDC in terms of PPV and NPV for any outcomes.ConclusionsNeither measure demonstrated high sensitivity. However, MCC using a definition of 10 or more regular medication classes to define multimorbidity had higher specificity for predicting poorer health outcomes. While having limitations, this definition could be used for proactive identification of patients who may benefit from targeted clinical care.

Project description:BackgroundThere is no objective test that can unequivocally confirm the diagnosis of atopic dermatitis (AD), and no uniform clinical definition.ObjectivesTo investigate to what extent operational definitions of AD cause fluctuation in the prevalence estimates and the associated risk factors.MethodsWe first reviewed the operational definitions of AD used in the literature. We then tested the impact of the choice of the most common definitions of 'cases' and 'controls' on AD prevalence estimates and associated risk factors (including filaggrin mutations) among children aged 5 years in two population-based birth cohorts: the Manchester Asthma and Allergy Study (MAAS) and Asthma in Ashford. Model performance was measured by the percentage of children within an area of clinical indecision (defined as having a posterior probability of AD between 25% and 60%).ResultsWe identified 59 different definitions of AD across 45 reviewed studies. Of those, we chose four common 'case' definitions and two definitions of 'controls'. The prevalence estimates using different case definitions ranged between 22% and 33% in MAAS, and between 12% and 22% in Ashford. The area of clinical indecision ranged from 32% to 44% in MAAS and from 9% to 29% in Ashford. Depending on the case definition used, the associations with filaggrin mutations varied, with odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) ranging from 1·8 (1·1-2·9) to 2·2 (1·3-3·7) in MAAS and 1·7 (0·8-3·7) to 2·3 (1·2-4·5) in Ashford. Associations with filaggrin mutations also differed when using the same 'case' definition but different definitions of 'controls'.ConclusionsUse of different definitions of AD results in substantial differences in prevalence estimates, the performance of prediction models and association with risk factors. What's already known about this topic? There is no objective test that can unequivocally confirm the diagnosis of atopic dermatitis (AD) and no uniform clinical definition. This results in different definitions utilized in AD studies, raising concerns on the generalizability of the results and comparability across different studies. What does this study add? This study has shown that different definitions of 'cases' and 'controls' have major impacts upon prevalence estimates and associations with risk factors, including genetics, in two population-based birth cohorts. These findings suggest the importance of developing a consensus on AD definitions of both 'controls' and 'cases' to minimize biases in studies.