Abstract
Background: There is a lack of systematic understanding of how multimorbidity has been constructed and measured. This review aims to examine multimorbidity definition and measurement in research.
Methods: Systematic review registered with PROSPERO (CRD420201724090), with searches in nine bibliographic databases, from inception to 21/01/20. Reference lists of retrieved articles were hand-searched. Eligible studies measured multimorbidity for any purpose in primary care, community or hospital populations. Two reviewers independently reviewed the retrieved
studies. We used descriptive analyses to understand characteristics and patterns of multimorbidity measures.
Findings: In total, 566 studies were included in this review. 36% of studies did not explicitly report how they defined multimorbidity and 13% did not report the conditions their measure included. The number of conditions included in measures ranged from 2 to 285 (median 17, interquartile range 11-23). 98% of measures included at least one cardiovascular condition, compared to at least one metabolic and endocrine (97%), respiratory (93%), musculoskeletal
(88%) and mental health (79%) condition, whereas chronic infections (27%), haematological (24%), ENT (24%), skin (16%) and oral (4%) conditions were uncommonly included. Only eight individual conditions were included by more than half of studies (diabetes, stroke, cancer, COPD, hypertension, coronary heart disease, chronic kidney disease and heart failure), none of which were mental health conditions.
Interpretation: Measurement of multimorbidity is poorly reported and very variable. Consistent reporting of measure definitions should be required by journals, and consensus studies are needed to define core and optional conditions to include.
Methods: Systematic review registered with PROSPERO (CRD420201724090), with searches in nine bibliographic databases, from inception to 21/01/20. Reference lists of retrieved articles were hand-searched. Eligible studies measured multimorbidity for any purpose in primary care, community or hospital populations. Two reviewers independently reviewed the retrieved
studies. We used descriptive analyses to understand characteristics and patterns of multimorbidity measures.
Findings: In total, 566 studies were included in this review. 36% of studies did not explicitly report how they defined multimorbidity and 13% did not report the conditions their measure included. The number of conditions included in measures ranged from 2 to 285 (median 17, interquartile range 11-23). 98% of measures included at least one cardiovascular condition, compared to at least one metabolic and endocrine (97%), respiratory (93%), musculoskeletal
(88%) and mental health (79%) condition, whereas chronic infections (27%), haematological (24%), ENT (24%), skin (16%) and oral (4%) conditions were uncommonly included. Only eight individual conditions were included by more than half of studies (diabetes, stroke, cancer, COPD, hypertension, coronary heart disease, chronic kidney disease and heart failure), none of which were mental health conditions.
Interpretation: Measurement of multimorbidity is poorly reported and very variable. Consistent reporting of measure definitions should be required by journals, and consensus studies are needed to define core and optional conditions to include.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | e587-e597 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | The Lancet Public Health |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue number | 8 |
| Early online date | 22 Jun 2021 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Aug 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Funding: Health Data Research UK (CFC0110)Acknowledgements
This project was funded by HDR UK (CFC0110). We would like to express our appreciation to the wider HDR UK National Multimorbidity Resource for support.
Data Availability Statement
Study data are available on request to the corresponding author.
Access to Document
- Ho_et_al_examining_variation_lancet_vor
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/