Heather Maddocks

A Systematic Review of Prevalence Studies on Multimorbidity: Toward a More Uniform Methodology

PURPOSE We sought to identify and compare studies reporting the prevalence of multimorbidity and to suggest methodologic aspects to be considered in the conduct of such studies. METHODS We searched the literature for English- and French-language articles published between 1980 and September 2010 that described the prevalence of multimorbidity in the general population, in primary care, or both. We assessed quality of included studies with a modified version of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. Results of individual prevalence studies were adjusted so that they could be compared graphically. RESULTS The final sample included 21 articles: 8 described studies conducted in primary care, 12 in the general population, and 1 in both. All articles were of good quality. The largest differences in prevalence of multimorbidity were observed at age 75 in both primary care (with prevalence ranging from 3.5% to 98.5% across studies) and the general population (with prevalence ranging from 13.1% to 71.8% across studies). Apart from differences in geographic settings, we identified differences in recruitment method and sample size (primary care: 980–60,857 patients; general population: 1,099–316,928 individuals), data collection, and the operational definition of multimorbidity used, including the number of diagnoses considered (primary care: 5 to all; general population: 7 to all). This last aspect seemed to be the most important factor in estimating prevalence. CONCLUSIONS Marked variation exists among studies of the prevalence of multimorbidity with respect to both methodology and findings. When undertaking such studies, investigators should carefully consider the specific diagnoses included and their number, as well as the operational definition of multimorbidity.

Rules of engagement: residents' perceptions of the in-training evaluation process.

Background In-training evaluation reports (ITERs) often fall short of their goals of promoting resident learning and development. Efforts to address this problem through faculty development and assessment-instrument modification have been disappointing. The authors explored residents’ experiences and perceptions of the ITER process to gain insight into why the process succeeds or fails. Method Using a grounded theory approach, semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 residents. Constant comparative analysis for emergent themes was conducted. Results All residents identified aspects of “engagement” in the ITER process as the dominant influence on the success of ITERs. Both external (evaluator-driven, such as evaluator credibility) and internal (resident-driven, such as self-assessment) influences on engagement were elaborated. When engagement was lacking, residents viewed the ITER process as inauthentic. Conclusions Engagement is a critical factor to consider when seeking to improve ITER use. Our articulation of external and internal influences on engagement provides a starting point for targeted interventions.

Comparisons of multi-morbidity in family practice—issues and biases

Background. As the population ages, practice and policy need to be guided by accurate estimates of chronic disease burden in primary care. Objective. To produce a preliminary set of methodological considerations for cross-sectional and retrospective cohort studies of multi-morbidity in primary care using three studies as examples. Prevalence rate results from the three studies were re-estimated using identical age–sex groups. Methods. We compared the methods and results of three separate studies in primary care: (i) patients in the Saguenay region of Quebec, Canada (2005); (ii) a substudy of the BEACH (Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health) programme in Australia (2008); and (iii) the DELPHI (Deliver Primary Health Care Information) project in South-western Ontario, Canada (2009). Areas where the methods of multi-morbidity studies may differ were identified. The percentage of patients with two or more chronic conditions was compared by age–sex groups. Results. Multi-morbidity prevalence varied by as much as 61%, where reported prevalence was 95% among females aged 45–64 in the Saguenay study, 46% in the BEACH substudy and 34% in the DELPHI study. Several aspects of the methods and study designs were identified as differing among the studies, including the sampling of frequent attenders, sampling period, source of data, and both the definition and count of chronic conditions. Conclusions. Understanding the differences among the methods used to produce prevalence data on multi-morbidity in primary care can help explain the varying results. Standardization of methods would allow for more valid inter-study comparisons.

Neuropathic pain in a primary care electronic health record database

Neuropathic pain (NP) is common in the adult population but is difficult to study in electronic health record (EHR) databases because it is a symptom rather than a pathologic diagnosis. The first step in studying NP in EHR databases is to develop methods for identifying patients with NP. The objectives of this study were to develop estimates of the prevalence of NP among patients in a primary care EHR database and describe these patients’ demographic characteristics and health‐care utilization.

Methods to Describe Referral Patterns in a Canadian Primary Care Electronic Medical Record Database: Modelling Multilevel Count Data

Background A referral from a family physician (FP) to a specialist is an inflection point in the patient journey, with potential implications for clinical outcomes and health policy. Primary care electronic medical record (EMR) databases offer opportunities to examine referral patterns. Until recently, software techniques were not available to model these kinds of multi-level count data. Objective To establish methodology for determining referral rates from FPs to medical specialists using the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) EMR database. Method Retrospective cohort study, mixed effects and multi-level negative binomial regression modelling with 87,258 eligible patients between 2007 and 2012. Mean referrals compared by patient sex, age, chronic conditions, FP visits, and urban/rural practice location. Proportion of variance in referral rates attributable to the patient and practice levels. Results On average, males had 0.26 and females had 0.31 referrals in a 12-month period. Referrals were significantly higher for females, increased with age, FP visits and the number of chronic conditions (p < 0.0001). Overall, 14% of the variance in referrals could be attributed to the practice level, and 86% to patient level characteristics. Conclusions Both the patient and practice characteristics influenced referral patterns. The methodologic insights gained from this study have relevance to future studies on many research questions that utilise count data, both within primary care and broader health services research. The utility of the CPCSSN database will continue to increase in tandem with data quality improvements, providing a valuable resource to study Canadian referral patterns over time.