Search

Background Multimorbidity prevalence rates vary considerably depending on the conditions considered in the morbidity count, but there is no standardised approach to the number or selection of conditions to include. Methods and findings We conducted a cross-sectional study using English primary care data for 1,168,260 participants who were all people alive and permanently registered with 149 included general practices. Outcome measures of the study were prevalence estimates of multimorbidity (defined as [greater than or equal to]2 conditions) when varying the number and selection of conditions considered for 80 conditions. Included conditions featured in [greater than or equal to]1 of the 9 published lists of conditions examined in the study and/or phenotyping algorithms in the Health Data Research UK (HDR-UK) Phenotype Library. First, multimorbidity prevalence was calculated when considering the individually most common 2 conditions, 3 conditions, etc., up to 80 conditions. Second, prevalence was calculated using 9 condition-lists from published studies. Analyses were stratified by dependent variables age, socioeconomic position, and sex. Prevalence when only the 2 commonest conditions were considered was 4.6% (95% CI [4.6, 4.6] p < 0.001), rising to 29.5% (95% CI [29.5, 29.6] p < 0.001) considering the 10 commonest, 35.2% (95% CI [35.1, 35.3] p < 0.001) considering the 20 commonest, and 40.5% (95% CI [40.4, 40.6] p 99% of that measured when considering all 80 conditions was 52 for the whole population but was lower in older people (29 in >80 years) and higher in younger people (71 in 0- to 9-year-olds). Nine published condition-lists were examined; these were either recommended for measuring multimorbidity, used in previous highly cited studies of multimorbidity prevalence, or widely applied measures of 'comorbidity.' Multimorbidity prevalence using these lists varied from 11.1% to 36.4%. A limitation of the study is that conditions were not always replicated using the same ascertainment rules as previous studies to improve comparability across condition-lists, but this highlights further variability in prevalence estimates across studies. Conclusions In this study, we observed that varying the number and selection of conditions results in very large differences in multimorbidity prevalence, and different numbers of conditions are needed to reach ceiling rates of multimorbidity prevalence in certain groups of people. These findings imply that there is a need for a standardised approach to defining multimorbidity, and to facilitate this, researchers can use existing condition-lists associated with highest multimorbidity prevalence., Author(s): Clare MacRae 1,2,*, Megan McMinn 2, Stewart W. Mercer 1,2, David Henderson 2, David A. McAllister 3, Iris Ho 1,2, Emily Jefferson 4, Daniel R. Morales 4, Jane Lyons [...]

Background: The new Scottish GP contract commenced in April 2018 with a stated aim of mitigating health inequalities. Aim: To determine the health characteristics and experiences of patients consulting GPs in deprived urban (DU), affluent urban (AU), and remote and rural (RR) areas of Scotland. Design and setting: In 2022, a postal survey of a random sample of adult patients from 12 practices who had consulted a GP within the previous 30 days was undertaken. Method: Patient characteristics and consultation experiences in the three areas (DU, AU, RR) were evaluated using validated measures including the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure and Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI). Results: In total, 1053 responses were received. In DU areas, multimorbidity was more common (78% versus 58% AU versus 68% RR, P<0.01), complex presentations (where the consultation addressed both psychosocial and physical problems) were more likely (16% versus 10% AU versus 11% RR, P<0.05), and more consultations were conducted by telephone (42% versus 31% AU versus 31% RR, P<0.01). Patients in DU areas reported lower satisfaction (82% DU completely, very, or fairly satisfied versus 90% AU versus 86% RR, P<0.01), lower perceived GP empathy (mean CARE score 38.9 versus 42.1 AU versus 40.1 RR, P<0.05), lower enablement (mean PEI score 2.6 versus 3.2 AU versus 2.8 RR, P<0.01), and less symptom improvement (P<0.01) than those in AU or RR areas. Face-to-face consultations were associated with significantly higher satisfaction, enablement, and perceived GP empathy than telephone consultations in RR areas (all P<0.05). Conclusion: Four years after the start of the new GP contract in Scotland, patients' experiences of GP consultations suggest that the inverse care law persists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE To assess the effect of a primary care-based community-links practitioner (CLP) intervention on patients' quality of life and well-being. METHODS Quasi-experimental cluster-randomized controlled trial in socioeconomically deprived areas of Glasgow, Scotland. Adult patients (aged 18 years or older) referred to CLPs in 7 intervention practices were compared with a random sample of adult patients from 8 comparison practices at baseline and 9 months. Primary outcome: health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L, a standardized measure of self-reported health-related quality of life that assesses 5 dimensions at 5 levels of severity). Secondary outcomes: well-being (Investigating Choice Experiments for the Preferences of Older People Capability Measure for Adults [ICECAP-A]), depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Depression [HADS-D]), anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Anxiety [HADS-A]), and self-reported exercise. Multilevel, multiregression analyses adjusted for baseline differences. Patients were not blinded to the intervention, but outcome analysis was masked. RESULTS Data were collected on 288 and 214 (74.3%) patients in the intervention practices at baseline and follow-up, respectively, and on 612 and 561 (92%) patients in the comparison practices. Intention-to-treat analysis found no differences between the 2 groups for any outcome. In subgroup analyses, patients who saw the CLP on 3 or more occasions (45% of those referred) had significant improvements in EQ-5D-5L, HADS-D, HADS-A, and exercise levels. There was a high positive correlation between CLP consultation rates and patient uptake of suggested community resources. CONCLUSIONS We were unable to prove the effectiveness of referral to CLPs based in primary care in deprived areas for improving patient outcomes. Future efforts to boost uptake and engagement could improve overall outcomes, although the apparent improvements in those who regularly saw the CLPs may be due to reverse causality. Further research is needed before wide-scale deployment of this approach. Key words: general practice; primary care; multimorbidity; complex interventions; health inequalities; social prescribing; community link workers, INTRODUCTION Health inequalities are a global problem, resulting from a fundamental inequity in the distribution of income, power, and wealth. This inequity limits opportunities across the life course, including access [...]

Background: The Scottish Government's vision to transform primary care includes expansion of the primary care multidisciplinary team (MDT), formalised in the new GP contract in April 2018. Aim: To explore practitioners' views on the expansion of MDT working in Scotland. Design and setting: Qualitative study with GPs and a range of MDT staff working in three different population settings in Scotland. Method: In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out by telephone with 8 GPs and 19 MDT staff between May and June 2022. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify commonalities and divergences in the interviews. Results: Internal challenges facing MDT staff included adapting to the fast pace of primary care, building new relationships, training and professional development needs, line management issues, and monitoring and evaluation of performance. External challenges included the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of time, difficulties with hybrid working, and low staff morale. Most GPs reported that expansion of their roles as expert medical specialists had not yet happened because their workload had not decreased (and in many cases had increased). In deprived areas, insufficient resources to deal with the high numbers of patients with complex multimorbidity remained a key issue. Interviewees in remote and rural settings felt the new contract did not take into account the unique challenges of providing primary care services in such areas, and recruitment and accommodation were cited as particular problems. Conclusion: Although there has been substantial expansion of the primary care MDT, which most GPs welcome, many challenges to effective implementation remain that must be addressed if transformation of primary care in Scotland is to become a reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]