Effectiveness of an adaptive, multifaceted intervention to enhance care for patients with complex multimorbidity in general practice: protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (the MM600 trial).

INTRODUCTION: Patients with complex multimorbidity face a high treatment burden and frequently have low quality of life. General practice is the key organisational setting in terms of offering people with complex multimorbidity integrated, longitudinal, patient-centred care. This protocol describes a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an adaptive, multifaceted intervention in general practice for patients with complex multimorbidity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this study, 250 recruited general practices will be randomly assigned 1:1 to either the intervention or control group. The eligible population are adult patients with two or more chronic conditions, at least one contact with secondary care within the last year, taking at least five repeat prescription drugs, living independently, who experience significant problems with their life and health due to their multimorbidity. During 2023 and 2024, intervention practices are financially incentivised to provide an extended consultation based on a patient-centred framework to eligible patients. Control practices continue care as usual. The primary outcome is need-based quality of life. Outcomes will be evaluated using linear and logistic regression models, with clustering considered. The analysis will be performed as intention to treat. In addition, a process evaluation will be carried out and reported elsewhere. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, the Helsinki Declaration in its most recent form and good clinical practice recommendations, as well as the regulation for informed consent. The study was submitted to the Danish Capital Region Ethical Committee (ref: H-22041229). As defined by Section 2 of the Danish Act on Research Ethics in Research Projects, this project does not constitute a health research project but is considered a quality improvement project that does not require formal ethical approval. All results from the study (whether positive, negative or inconclusive) will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05676541.

Definition and delimitation of multimorbidity.

Multimorbidity is often defined as two or more long-term conditions, the definition may, however, vary. This review summarises various definitions of multimorbidity. The prevalence of multimorbidity in Denmark is between 7% and 29% depending on data sources and definition and is increasing with age; nonetheless most patients with multimorbidity are of working age. Several multimorbidity indices have been developed for research purposes, but with no clinical consensus. The concept of complex multimorbidity adds psychosocial context and health-care patterns to better describe the group of patients with multimorbidity having the highest needs.

Symptom burden in multimorbidity: a population-based combined questionnaire and registry study from Denmark.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with multimorbidity may carry a large symptom burden. Symptoms are often what drive patients to seek healthcare and they also assist doctors with diagnosis. We examined whether symptom burden is additive in people with multimorbidity compared with people with a single morbidity. DESIGN: This is a longitudinal cohort study drawing on questionnaire and Danish national registry data. Multimorbidity was defined as having diagnoses from at least two out of ten morbidity groups. Associations between morbidity groups and symptom burden were estimated with multivariable models. PARTICIPANTS: In 2012, 47 452 participants from the Danish Symptom Cohort answered a questionnaire about symptoms (36 symptoms in total), including whether symptoms were affecting their daily activities (impairment score) and their worries about present symptoms (worry score) (the highest score among the 36 symptoms on a 0-4 scale). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was symptom burden. RESULTS: Participants without morbidity reported 4.77 symptoms (out of 36 possible). Participants with one, two or three morbidities reported more symptoms than patients without morbidity (0.95 (CI 0.86 to 1.03), 1.87 (CI 1.73 to 2.01) and 2.89 (CI 2.66 to 3.12), respectively). Furthermore, they reported a higher impairment score (0.36 (0.32 to 0.39), 0.65 (0.60 to 0.70) and 1.06 (0.98 to 1.14)) and a higher worry score (0.34 (0.31 to 0.37), 0.62 (0.57 to 0.66) and 1.02 (0.94 to 1.10)) than participants without morbidity. In 45 possible combinations of multimorbidity (participants with two morbidities), interaction effects were additive in 37, 41 and 36 combinations for the number of symptoms, impairment score and worry score, respectively. CONCLUSION: Participants without morbidity reported a substantial number of symptoms. Having a single morbidity or multimorbidity resulted in approximately one extra symptom for each extra morbidity. In most combinations of multimorbidity, symptom burden was additive.

The association between clusters of chronic conditions and psychological well-being in younger and older people-A cross-sectional, population-based study from the Lolland-Falster Health Study, Denmark.

AIM: To investigate the association between clusters of conditions and psychological well-being across age groups. METHOD: This cross-sectional study used data collected in the Danish population-based Lolland-Falster Health Study. We included adults over the age of 18 years. Self-reported chronic conditions were divided into 10 groups of conditions. The primary outcome was psychological well-being (the WHO-5 Well-Being Index). Factor analysis constructed the clusters of conditions, and regression analysis investigated the association between clusters and psychological well-being. RESULTS: Of 10,781 participants, 31.4% were between 18 and 49 years, 35.7% were between 50 and 64 years and 32.9% were above ≥65 years. 35.2% had conditions represented in 1 and 32.9% in at least 2 of 10 condition groups. Across age groups, living with one or more chronic conditions was associated with poorer psychological well-being. Two chronic condition patterns were identified; one comprised cardiovascular, endocrine, kidney, musculoskeletal and cancer conditions, the second mental, lung, neurological, gastrointestinal and sensory conditions. Both patterns were associated with poorer psychological well-being (Pattern 1: -4.5 (95% CI: -5.3 to -3.7), Pattern 2: -9.1 (95% CI -13.8 to -8.2). For pattern 2, participants ≥65 years had poorer psychological well-being compared to younger (-12.6 (95% CI -14.2 to -11.0) vs -6.6 (95% CI: -7.8 to -5.4) for 18-49 years and -8.7 (95% CI: -10.1 to -7.3) for 50-64 years, interaction: p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: Living with one or more chronic conditions is associated with poorer psychological well-being. Findings point toward a greater focus on supporting psychological well-being in older adults with both mental and somatic conditions.

The development of multimorbidity during 16 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to (1) quantify the development and composition of multimorbidity (MM) during 16 years following the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and (2) evaluate whether the effectiveness of structured personal diabetes care differed between patients with and without MM. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: One thousand three hundred eighty-one patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive either structured personal diabetes care or routine diabetes care. Patients were followed up for 19 years in Danish nationwide registries for the occurrence of outcomes. We analyzed the prevalence and degree of MM based on 10 well-defined disease groups. The effect of structured personal care in diabetes patients with and without MM was analyzed with Cox regression models. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with MM increased from 31.6% at diabetes diagnosis to 80.4% after 16 years. The proportion of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal diseases in surviving patients decreased, while, for example, musculoskeletal, eye, and neurological diseases increased. The effect of the intervention was not different between type 2 diabetes patients with or without coexisting chronic disease. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the proportion of patients with MM increased after diabetes diagnosis, but the composition of chronic disease changed during the 16 years. We found cardiovascular and musculoskeletal disease to be the most prevalent disease groups during all 16 years of follow-up. The post hoc analysis of the intervention showed that its effectiveness was not different among patients who developed MM compared to those who continued to have diabetes alone.

The effect of structured personal care on diabetes symptoms and self-rated health over 14 years after diabetes diagnosis.

AIMS: To explore the effect of structured personal care on diabetes symptoms and self-rated health over 14 years after diabetes diagnosis while patients are gradually diagnosed with other chronic conditions (multimorbidity). METHODS: Post hoc analysis of the Danish randomized controlled trial Diabetes Care in General Practice including 1381 patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The effect of structured personal care compared with routine care on diabetes symptoms and self-rated health was analysed 6 and 14 years after diagnosis with a generalized multilevel Rasch model. RESULTS: Structured personal care reduced the overall likelihood of reporting diabetes symptoms at the end of the intervention (OR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.64-0.97), but this effect was not explained by glycaemic control or multimorbidity. There was no effect of the intervention on diabetes symptoms after 14 years or on self-rated health after 6 years or 14 years. CONCLUSIONS: Structured personal care had a beneficial effect on diabetes symptoms 6 years after diagnosis, but not on self-rated health at either follow up point. To optimally manage patients over time it is important to supplement clinical information by information provided by the patients.

Exploring the concurrent validity of the nationwide assessment of permanent nursing home residence in Denmark - A cross-sectional data analysis using two administrative registries.

BACKGROUND: Many register studies make use of information about permanent nursing home residents. Statistics Denmark (StatD) identifies nursing home residents by two different indirect methods, one based on reports from the municipalities regarding home care in taken place in a nursing home, and the other based on an algorithm created by StatD. The aim of the present study was to validate StatD's nursing home register using dedicated administrative municipality records on individual nursing home residents as gold standard. METHODS: In total, ten Danish municipalities were selected. Within each Danish Region, we randomly selected one municipality reporting to Stat D (Method 1) and one not reporting where instead an algorithm created by StatD was used to discover nursing home residents (Method 2). Method 1 means that municipalities reported to Stat D whether home care has taken place in a nursing home or in a private home. Method 2 is based on an algorithm created by Stat D for the municipalities where Method 1 is not applicable. Our gold standard was the information from the local administrative system in all ten selected municipalities. Each municipality provided a list with all individuals > 65 years living in a nursing home on January 1st, 2013 as well as the central personal number. This was compared to the list of individuals >65 living in nursing home facilities in the same ten municipalities on January 1st, 2013 retrieved from StatD. RESULTS: According to the data received directly from the municipalities, which was used as our gold Standard 3821 individuals were identified as nursing home residents. The StatD register identified 6,141 individuals as residents. Additionally, 556 of the individuals identified by the municipalities were not identified in the StatD register. Overall sensitivity for the ten municipalities in the StatD nursing home register was 0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.87) and the PPV was 0.53 (95% CI 0.52-0.54). The municipalities for which nursing home status was based on the StatD algorithm (method 2) had a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.82-0.86) and PPV of 0.48 (95% CI 0.46-0.50). Both slightly lower than the reporting municipalities (method 1) where the sensitivity was 0.87(95% CI 0.85-0.88) and the PPV was 0.57 (95% CI 0.56-0.59). Additionally, the sensitivity and PPV of the Stat D register varied heavily among the ten municipalities from 0.51 (95% CI 0.43-0.59) to 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.98) and PPV correspondingly, from 0.14 (95% CI: 0.11-0.17) to 0.73 (95% CI 0.69-0.77). CONCLUSIONS: The overall PPV of StatD nursing home register was low and differences between municipalities existed. Even in countries with extensive nation-wide registers, validating studies should be conducted for outcomes based on these registers.

The role of diseases, risk factors and symptoms in the definition of multimorbidity - a systematic review.

UNLABELLED: Objective is to explore how multimorbidity is defined in the scientific literature, with a focus on the roles of diseases, risk factors, and symptoms in the definitions. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for relevant publications up until October 2013. One author extracted the information. Ambiguities were resolved, and consensus reached with one co-author. Outcome measures were: cut-off point for the number of conditions included in the definitions of multimorbidity; setting; data sources; number, kind, duration, and severity of diagnoses, risk factors, and symptoms. We reviewed 163 articles. In 61 articles (37%), the cut-off point for multimorbidity was two or more conditions (diseases, risk factors, or symptoms). The most frequently used setting was the general population (68 articles, 42%), and primary care (41 articles, 25%). Sources of data were primarily self-reports (56 articles, 42%). Out of the 163 articles selected, 115 had individually constructed multimorbidity definitions, and in these articles diseases occurred in all definitions, with diabetes as the most frequent. Risk factors occurred in 98 (85%) and symptoms in 71 (62%) of the definitions. The severity of conditions was used in 26 (23%) of the definitions, but in different ways. The definition of multimorbidity is heterogeneous and risk factors are more often included than symptoms. The severity of conditions is seldom included. Since the number of people living with multimorbidity is increasing there is a need to develop a concept of multimorbidity that is more useful in daily clinical work. Key points The increasing number of multimorbidity patients challenges the healthcare system. The concept of multimorbidity needs further discussion in order to be implemented in daily clinical practice. Many definitions of multimorbidity exist and most often a cut-off point of two or more is applied to a range of 4-147 different conditions. Diseases are included in all definitions of multimorbidity. Risk factors are often included in existing definitions, whereas symptoms and the severity of the conditions are less frequently included.

Problems and challenges in relation to the treatment of patients with multimorbidity: General practitioners' views and attitudes.

OBJECTIVE: To explore views and attitudes among general practitioners (GPs) and researchers in the field of general practice towards problems and challenges related to treatment of patients with multimorbidity. SETTING: A workshop entitled Patients with multimorbidity in general practice held during the Nordic Congress of General Practice in Tampere, Finland, 2013. SUBJECTS: A total of 180 GPs and researchers. DESIGN: Data for this summary report originate from audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim plenary discussions as well as 76 short questionnaires answered by attendees during the workshop. The data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: (i) Complex care pathways and clinical guidelines developed for single diseases were identified as very challenging when handling patients with multimorbidity; (ii) insufficient cooperation between the professionals involved in the care of multimorbid patients underlined the GPs' impression of a fragmented health care system; (iii) GPs found it challenging to establish a good dialogue and prioritize problems with patients within the timeframe of a normal consultation; (iv) the future role of the GP was discussed in relation to diminishing health inequality, and current payment systems were criticized for not matching the treatment patterns of patients with multimorbidity. CONCLUSION: The participants supported the development of a future research strategy to improve the treatment of patients with multimorbidity. Four main areas were identified, which need to be investigated further to improve care for this steadily growing patient group.