Harrison Christopher, Britt Helena, Miller Graeme, Henderson Joan
Family Medicine Research Centre, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2014 Jul 11;4(7):e004694. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004694.
Prevalence estimates of multimorbidity vary widely due to inconsistent definitions and measurement methods. This study examines the independent effects on prevalence estimates of how 'disease entity' is defined-as a single chronic condition or chapters/domains in the International Classification of Primary Care (V.2; ICPC-2), International Classification of Disease (10th revision; ICD-10) or the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), the number of disease entities required for multimorbidity, and the number of chronic conditions studied.
National prospective cross-sectional study.
Australian general practice.
8707 random consenting deidentified patient encounters with 290 randomly selected general practitioners.
Prevalence estimates of multimorbidity using different definitions.
Data classified to ICPC-2 chapters, ICD-10 chapters or CIRS domains produce similar multimorbidity prevalence estimates. When multimorbidity was defined as two or more (2+) disease entities: counting individual chronic conditions and groups of chronic conditions produced similar estimates; the 12 most prevalent chronic conditions identified about 80% of those identified using all chronic conditions. When multimorbidity was defined as 3+ disease entities: counting individual chronic conditions produced significantly higher estimates than counting groups of chronic conditions; the 12 most prevalent chronic conditions identified only two-thirds of patients identified using all chronic conditions.
Multimorbidity defined as 2+ disease entities can be measured using different definitions of disease entity with as few as 12 prevalent chronic conditions, but lacks specificity to be useful, especially in older people. Multimorbidity, defined as 3+, requires more measurement conformity and inclusion of all chronic conditions, but provides greater specificity than the 2+ definition. The proposed concept of "complex multimorbidity", the co-occurrence of three or more chronic conditions affecting three or more different body systems within one person without defining an index chronic condition, may be useful in identifying high-need individuals.
由于定义和测量方法不一致,多种疾病并存的患病率估计差异很大。本研究探讨了“疾病实体”定义(作为单一慢性病或《国际初级保健分类》(第2版;ICPC - 2)、《国际疾病分类》(第10次修订版;ICD - 10)或累积疾病评定量表(CIRS)中的章节/领域)、多种疾病并存所需的疾病实体数量以及所研究的慢性病数量对患病率估计的独立影响。
全国前瞻性横断面研究。
澳大利亚全科医疗。
8707例随机同意且身份信息保密的患者就诊,涉及290名随机选择的全科医生。
使用不同定义的多种疾病并存的患病率估计。
归类于ICPC - 2章节、ICD - 10章节或CIRS领域的数据得出相似的多种疾病并存患病率估计。当多种疾病并存定义为两个或更多(2 +)疾病实体时:计算个体慢性病和慢性病组得出的估计相似;12种最常见的慢性病识别出的患者约占使用所有慢性病识别出患者的80%。当多种疾病并存定义为3 +疾病实体时:计算个体慢性病得出的估计显著高于计算慢性病组;12种最常见的慢性病仅识别出使用所有慢性病识别出患者的三分之二。
定义为2 +疾病实体的多种疾病并存可用疾病实体的不同定义进行测量,只需12种常见慢性病即可,但缺乏特异性,实用性不强,尤其是在老年人中。定义为3 +的多种疾病并存需要更多测量一致性并纳入所有慢性病,但比2 +定义具有更高的特异性。提出的“复杂多种疾病并存”概念,即一个人同时出现三种或更多影响三个或更多不同身体系统的慢性病且未定义索引慢性病,可能有助于识别高需求个体。