Academic Unit of Primary Health Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, Bristol University, Bristol, England.
Ann Fam Med. 2012 Mar-Apr;10(2):134-41. doi: 10.1370/afm.1363.
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.
Studies were identified using searches in MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to December 2009 and bibliographies.
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.
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.
在初级保健中就诊的许多患者患有多种疾病(共病)。本研究旨在确定适用于初级保健和社区人群研究的共病和发病负担测量方法,并调查它们与预期的患者特征、过程指标和健康结果之间的相关性的有效性。
使用 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 从建立到 2009 年 12 月的搜索以及参考文献进行研究。
共纳入了 194 篇描述 17 种不同方法的文章。常用的方法包括疾病计数(n=98)、慢性疾病评分(CDS)/RxRisk(n=17)、调整临床分组系统(ACG)(n=25)、Charlson 指数(n=38)、累积疾病严重程度评分量表(CIRS;n=10)和杜克严重疾病检查表(DUSOI;n=6)。比较这些方法的研究表明,它们对同一结果的预测效度差异很小。ACG 系统、Charlson 指数或疾病计数与医疗利用的关系最有力;ACG 系统与成本的关系;Charlson 指数与死亡率的关系;疾病计数或 Charlson 指数与生活质量的关系。疾病或药物的简单计数在预测大多数结果方面几乎与复杂方法一样有效。结合使用这些方法可以提高有效性。
在初级保健和社区环境中最常用的方法是疾病计数、Charlson 指数、ACG 系统、CIRS、CDS 和 DUSOI。根据感兴趣的结果,选择最合适的方法。测量方法的选择还取决于可用数据的类型。需要更多的研究来直接比较不同方法的性能。