Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Review ArticleSystematic Review

Measures of Multimorbidity and Morbidity Burden for Use in Primary Care and Community Settings: A Systematic Review and Guide

Alyson L. Huntley, Rachel Johnson, Sarah Purdy, Jose M. Valderas and Chris Salisbury
The Annals of Family Medicine March 2012, 10 (2) 134-141; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1363
Alyson L. Huntley
BSc, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachel Johnson
MRCGP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah Purdy
MPH, MD, FRCGP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jose M. Valderas
MD, PhD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chris Salisbury
MSc, MD, FRCGP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: c.salisbury@bristol.ac.uk
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

PURPOSE 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.

METHODS Studies were identified using searches in MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to December 2009 and bibliographies.

RESULTS 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.

CONCLUSIONS 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.

  • comorbidity
  • multimorbidity
  • diagnosis-related groups
  • ambulatory care
  • primary health care
  • family practice

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing interest in the concept of multimorbidity, which is the co-occurrence of multiple diseases or medical conditions within 1 person.1 Multimorbidity is particularly important in generalist settings, such as primary care, where family practitioners act as the first point of contact for people with a wide range of conditions and frequently manage patients with multiple coexisting conditions. Most patients consulting in family practice have multimorbidity, and the number of coexisting conditions increases with age.2–4 The presence of multimorbidity is associated with increased health service utilization and poorer health outcomes.5–8

To assess the impact of multimorbidity, it is necessary to measure it. Measures of multimorbidity broadly fall into 2 types: simple counts of diseases in each individual (based on patient self-report or clinician assessment), and indices to assess morbidity burden that differentially weight a range of conditions or diseases, using weights based on mortality, severity, or likely resource utilization.1

Many measures of multimorbidity and comorbidity were originally developed and validated among selected patients in hospital settings. The reliability and validity of some of these measures in a range of settings have previously been reviewed by de Groot et al,9 but the findings may not be relevant to primary care, as the validity of a measure depends on the patient group and context in which it is assessed. Furthermore, their review was based on articles published before September 2000 and needs updating.

The current review focuses on the use of measures of multimorbidity in family practice, generalist ambulatory care settings, and community dwelling populations. In the context of this review, we have defined primary care and community settings broadly to ensure relevance to the different health systems providing primary care in different countries.

The aims of this review were (1) to identify and describe measures of multimorbidity that are most suitable for use in research in primary care and community populations, taking into account the data and resources they require; and (2) to investigate the validity of these measures in terms of whether they have demonstrated anticipated associations with patient characteristics, process measures, and health outcomes.

METHODS

Inclusion Criteria

We included studies with empirical data that enabled us to assess the validity and/or reliability of measures of multimorbidity when used in generalist primary care or population settings.

Assessment of validity depends on determining whether a measure is able to demonstrate associations that support an underlying theory about the relationship between the construct being measured and other variables.10 Because the nature of these anticipated relationships will vary in different settings, rather than addressing the validation of a measure, it is appropriate to assess the validity of a measure in a specific group of people and a specific context.11

For this review, we included studies that provided data about associations between measures of multimorbidity and (1) patient sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, sex, and deprivation; (2) worse health outcomes; and (3) process measures, such as utilization of health care, costs, and quality of care. It was anticipated that a valid measure of multimorbidity would demonstrate associations with these variables. We also sought to identify articles comparing one measure of multimorbidity against another. Finally, we sought to identify articles that demonstrated the test-retest, intrarater or interrater reliability of these measures when used in a primary care or community context.

We included quantitative studies of any design that were predominantly based on adults. Participants had to be identified either from a generalist primary care setting or a population sample. We did not restrict searches by country or language, although we did require an English abstract.

Exclusion Criteria

We excluded studies in which participants were identified through their contact with specialist services or hospital admission. We also excluded studies of measures in which the presence of an index disease was integral to the measure (for example, measures specific to diabetes); studies of comorbidity (an additional disease in patients with a specified index disease); studies in which the multimorbidity measure was only used to show associations with variables related to secondary care (for example, in-patient mortality); and studies that described the prevalence of multimorbidity without studying associations with other variables.

Searches

We conducted a systematic review through searches in MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to December 2009. Searches were undertaken in 3 stages, which were then combined. MeSH headings and free text were used to identify terms relating to (1) multimorbidity or comorbidity; (2) measures or indexes and terms for measures that we had already identified; and (3) ambulatory, outpatient, primary, or community care or general/community population.

The searches were developed iteratively to identify the combinations of terms that achieved an acceptable level of sensitivity and specificity. We repeatedly checked articles identified through different strategies against relevant articles already identified and articles identified through existing bibliographies.12–14 We also selected other articles from our personal files, contacted other researchers, and checked reference lists from relevant articles. The final search strategy is shown in the Supplemental Appendix, available at http://annfammed.org/content/10/2/134/suppl/DC1.

Data Management and Extraction

One author (A.H.) conducted a preliminary screen of titles and abstracts to exclude articles that were clearly irrelevant. Abstracts from the remaining studies were screened independently by 2 authors to identify potentially relevant articles that were then reviewed independently in full text. Disagreements were resolved between the 2 authors, with discussion with a third author as necessary.

We extracted data about the characteristics of the study population, setting, outcome variables, study design, and main results into a Microsoft Access database.

We describe the measures identified below. Supporting tables provide details about the information needed to calculate each measure, along with details of which measures have shown evidence of validity by demonstrating associations with the specified patient, process, or outcome variables.

RESULTS

The searches yielded 11,191 references, of which 314 were potentially relevant and were reviewed in full text, leading to the inclusion of 194 articles that described 184 studies, some describing more than 1 multimorbidity measure (Supplemental Figure 1, PRISMA, available at http://annfammed.org/content/10/2/134/suppl/DC1). The majority of studies were of cross-sectional or longitudinal design.

Of the included studies, 76 were based on patients identified through their contact with generalist primary care, and 108 were conducted among people living in the community (not as patients). One-half of the studies (n = 97, 53%) were conducted in the United States, with almost all of the remaining studies being conducted in Canada, Europe, or Australia.

Six measures were used in at least 5 studies. The characteristics and application of these measures are described in Table 1. The Appendix lists all the measures identified, including the lesser-used measures. Supplemental Tables 1, 2, and 3 (available at http://annfammed.org/content/10/2/134/suppl/DC1) describe whether each measure has demonstrated validity through showing anticipated associations with patient demographic characteristics, health outcomes, or health care utilization.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Characteristics and Application of the Most Commonly Studied Multimorbidity Measures in Outpatient Settings

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Appendix

Measures of Multimorbidity Identified

Disease Counts: 98 Studies

Disease counts were defined as a simple unweighted enumeration of the number of diseases. Disease counts specify whether the person has 1 or more of a limited list of conditions, but the conditions included in this list varied in different studies from 9 to 35 different items. These items may have been individual conditions, diseases, health problems, or categories of conditions or diseases. Disease counts may be self-rated, clinician-rated, or extracted from records. Disease counts are the most commonly used measure of multimorbidity and have been used mainly in relation to patient demographic characteristics and health outcomes and to a lesser extent process measures.

Chronic Disease Score (9 Studies)/RxRisk (8 Studies)

The Chronic Disease Score (CDS) uses pharmacy dispensing data to identify classes of medication that are taken as proxies for the existence of chronic disease (Table 1). The CDS has shown anticipated relationships with self-rated health status, functional status, hospitalization rates, and mortality.15,16,43,47–52 The original version15 considered 17 disease states with weights predefined by an expert panel. Notable subsequent versions include Clark et al’s revised CDS16 and RxRisk.17 Clark and colleagues considered an expanded number of diseases using weights for health utilization and costs derived empirically using health maintenance organization data. The RxRisk score, developed by Fishman et al, further expanded and revised the CDS, focusing on the estimation of future health care costs and increasing applicability to a wider range of pharmacy data sets and to children. Studies using the RxRisk model have shown anticipated associations with a wide range of variables (Supplemental Tables 1, 2, and 3).

Charlson Index and Variations: 38 Studies

Charlson et al developed this score for evaluating prognosis based on age and weightings for specific comorbid conditions.18 The validity of the Charlson index has been studied more extensively than other measures, particularly in hospital and specialist settings. Although it was developed and validated in hospitalized patients, it has since been adapted and validated in primary care and community populations.19,50,51,53 There are several variations of the Charlson index, but studies comparing these variations suggest they produce similar results.21,51,54–56 The majority of studies using the Charlson index described the effect of multimorbidity on health outcomes, particularly mortality.

Adjusted Clinical Groups System: 25 Studies

The Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) System, a population/patient case-mix adjustment system based on medical records or insurance claims, measures health status by grouping diagnoses into clinically cogent groups. The ACG System was originally designed to predict future morbidity and use of health care resources.25 Most studies of the ACG System described predictive models for a range of cost or process outcomes associated with multimorbidity.

Cumulative Index Illness Rating Scale: 10 Studies

The Cumulative Index Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) index uses a scoring system that includes 14 body system domains and a severity scale for each domain. The CIRS can be applied directly in consultations or from medical records (Table 1). Studies of the CIRS have found associations with a range of patient demographic characteristics, measures of process and health care utilization, and health outcomes. One study compared CIRS scored through direct patient observation or chart review and also assessed interrater and intrarater reliability. All methods produced comparable results. 57

Duke Severity of Illness: 6 Studies

Duke Severity of Illness (DUSOI) is a tool for measuring a person’s illness severity that comprises 4 parameters of each diagnosis, namely, symptoms, complications, prognosis without treatment, and treatment potential. DUSOI can be completed at a consultation or from chart review. A few studies of the DUSOI demonstrated associations with age and sex, health care utilization, and quality of life. Parkerson et al found good interrater reliability for the DUSOI when rated by a physician or an auditor.28,29

Other Measures: 21 Studies

Eleven other types of multimorbidity measure were used in studies, often in comparison with other measures (Appendix). These studies all described associations also found by more commonly used multimorbidity measures.

Comparison Studies: 15 Studies

Several studies have directly compared how different measures of multimorbidity were associated with relevant variables in generalist primary care or community settings.* Most of these articles suggested that the performance of the different measures studied was similar.17,29,44,47,50,51,58,61 The Charlson index and the ACG System appeared to be the strongest predictors of mortality,47,50 whereas the ACG System and measures based on medication prescribed (Appendix) were strongest at predicting health care utilization.17,50,51,53 Measures that include an assessment of functional status or subjective disease burden appear to be stronger predictors of a range of health outcomes than those that count diseases without adjustment for their severity or impact.41,58–60 Some studies have shown that combining different types of measures improves the overall predictive performance of models.29,41,51,60 Two studies have suggested that simple measures perform almost as well as more complex measures, for example, using a count of prescribed medications to predict health care utilization or a simple count from a list of major chronic diseases to predict mortality.47,50

DISCUSSION

Summary of Main Findings

This review provides an index of previous literature for investigators seeking to use a multimorbidity measure in relation to a particular outcome. Researchers interested in the relationship between multimorbidity and health care utilization will find most evidence for the validity of the Charlson index, the ACG System, and disease counts. Evidence of validity in relation to patient or health service costs is strongest for the ACG System. For studies of the relationship between multimorbidity and mortality, the evidence is strongest for the Charlson index. The most commonly used measures of multimorbidity in relation to patient functioning or quality of life are disease counts and the Charlson index, but some studies have suggested that the CIRS is actually superior,58,62 as are measures that incorporate self-reported disease impact and severity.41 That other measures have been used less often in relation to these outcomes does not necessarily mean that they are less valid, but their performance has been less well established.

Choice of Measure

The choice of measure is likely to be based on the suitability of the measure for the data available as well as the outcome of interest. The Charlson index, ACG System, disease counts, and prescription counts can all be calculated from patient records, and these measures are particularly suitable for cross-sectional studies based on electronic records or administrative data. Both the CIRS and DUSOI, however, require judgment about individual patients (also requiring manuals and training to ensure reliability) and cannot be automated for use with large volumes of data.

Measures based on routine data may be easy to use, but ease of use needs to be balanced against the quality of the data. All measures are dependent on the range of conditions recorded, how accurately and recently these conditions were recorded, and whether there is information about the severity and impact of conditions. Measures using clinician ratings or patient self-report will be up-to-date and may be more accurate at predicting functional outcomes if they include assessment of severity or disability. These measures, however, are often based on a more restricted list of diseases than measures based on records.

There are limitations to measures that use complex scoring. Changes to disease coding systems may mean that weights need to be reestimated, and relevant drugs used in medication-based measures are constantly changing, so scoring algorithms need regular updating. Proprietary risk adjustment systems, such as the ACG System, tend to use scoring systems that are not transparent and often have considerable costs to end-users.

The most common approach to measuring multi-morbidity is disease counts. Even so, it is hard to compare findings between studies, as different authors have included very different numbers of diseases, sometimes providing no details about which diseases are included or the criteria for inclusion.63 Most studies are based on counting so-called chronic diseases, but chronicity is rarely defined. The number of diseases is also related to the level of disease abstraction—for example, some measures count cancer as one condition, whereas others count each malignancy separately.63

It might be anticipated that such measures as the Charlson index, the ACG System, and the DUSOI, which weight different conditions, would be more effective at predicting outcomes than simple counts, which weight all conditions equally. Some studies, however, have concluded that simple measures, such as a simple count of chronic diseases or of prescribed medications, are almost as effective at predicting mortality and health care utilization as more sophisticated methods and may be much simpler (and also less expensive) to use despite the reservations outlined above.47,50

Part of the problem in choosing an appropriate measure is due to the abstract nature of the concept of multimorbidity and how it relates to other concepts, such as disease burden and patient complexity.1 It is important that measures are based on an underlying conceptualization of why and how multimorbidity is expected to have an impact on other variables. For example, the impact of multimorbidity on quality of life is likely to be most appropriately assessed using a self-report measure that takes account of functional ability,41 whereas the impact on health care utilization is likely to be best assessed using a measure that was derived using empirical weights to predict this outcome.64,65

Relatively few studies have directly compared the performance of different measures in a primary care context, and the findings do not show the clear superiority of one measure over another. Evidence about the reliability of these measures when used in a primary care or population setting is also limited. Evidence about the reliability of measures when used in hospitalized patients and specialist secondary care settings9 may not necessarily pertain to primary care settings, where patient characteristics, disease classifications, record systems, and staffing are very different.

Strengths and Limitations

This article builds on previous reviews of comorbidity measures in the context of specific index diseases9,66,67 by assessing the use of multimorbidity measures in generalist primary care and population settings. Multimorbidity is not well indexed in the literature, so it is unlikely that we have found all studies that would fit our inclusion criteria. We are aware that a number of risk adjustment models have been developed within the US health insurance system which have not been used frequently within academic research.68 Included studies used a variety of methods, and we have not set out to assess individual study quality. The methods used to derive each measure also differ considerably; therefore, comparing measures directly is fraught with both the inherent biases in the original studies plus the potential biases introduced by a systematic review, especially one of observational studies that have used different study designs. In some cases it was debatable whether the setting of a study should be considered as primary care; we resolved such issues through discussion. We are confident that our review reflects the range and application of multimorbidity measures in the primary care and population context.

Implications

Different measures are needed to assess associations with different outcomes and the choice of measure will also depend on the type of data available. The measures that have been most widely used and for which there is greatest evidence of validity are the Charlson index, disease counts, and the ACG System. Other measures such as the CIRS and the DUSOI are more complex to administer, and their advantages over easier methods have not been well established. Measures based on counts of prescribed medication appear promising but need further research.

Footnotes

  • ↵* References 17,29,44,47,49–51,53,55,58–60.

  • Conflicts of interest: authors report none.

  • Funding support: This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research, School for Primary Care Research.

  • Prior presentation: Preliminary data from this report have been presented as a poster at the annual meeting of the Society of Academic Primary Care (SAPC), April 2010, Norwich, England.

  • Received for publication June 8, 2011.
  • Revision received November 10, 2011.
  • Accepted for publication November 30, 2011.
  • © 2012 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Valderas JM,
    2. Starfield B,
    3. Sibbald B,
    4. Salisbury C,
    5. Roland M
    . Defining comorbidity: implications for understanding health and health services. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7(4):357–363.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Fortin M,
    2. Lapointe L,
    3. Hudon C,
    4. Vanasse A
    . Multimorbidity is common to family practice: is it commonly researched? Can Fam Physician. 2005;51:244–245.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Salisbury C,
    2. Johnson L,
    3. Purdy S,
    4. Valderas JM,
    5. Montgomery AA
    . Epidemiology and impact of multimorbidity in primary care: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract. 2011;61(582):e12–e21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Fortin M,
    2. Bravo G,
    3. Hudon C,
    4. Vanasse A,
    5. Lapointe L
    . Prevalence of multimorbidity among adults seen in family practice. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):223–228.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Wolff JL,
    2. Starfield B,
    3. Anderson G
    . Prevalence, expenditures, and complications of multiple chronic conditions in the elderly. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(20):2269–2276.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Fortin M,
    2. Lapointe L,
    3. Hudon C,
    4. Vanasse A,
    5. Ntetu AL,
    6. Maltais D
    . Multimorbidity and quality of life in primary care: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Fortin M,
    2. Dubois MF,
    3. Hudon C,
    4. Soubhi H,
    5. Almirall J
    . Multimorbidity and quality of life: a closer look. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Keles H,
    2. Ekici A,
    3. Ekici M,
    4. Bulcun E,
    5. Altinkaya V
    . Effect of chronic diseases and associated psychological distress on health-related quality of life. Intern Med J. 2007;37(1):6–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. de Groot V,
    2. Beckerman H,
    3. Lankhorst GJ,
    4. Bouter LM
    . How to measure comorbidity. a critical review of available methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(3):221–229.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. McDowell I
    . Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Oxford University Press; 2006.
  8. ↵
    1. Streiner DL,
    2. Norman GR
    . Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 4th ed. Cambridge: Oxford University Press; 2008.
  9. ↵
    International Research Community on Multimorbidity. http://www.usherbrooke.ca/crmcspl/en/international-research-community-on-multimorbidity/. Accessed Nov 2, 2010.
  10. John Hopkins ACG system. http://www.acg.jhsph.org/. Accessed Nov 2, 2010.
  11. ↵
    From the Centers for Disease Control. From the Centers for Disease Control. Comorbidity of chronic conditions and disability among older persons—United States, 1984. JAMA. 1990;263(2):209–210.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Von Korff M,
    2. Wagner EH,
    3. Saunders K
    . A chronic disease score from automated pharmacy data. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(2):197–203.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Clark DO,
    2. Von Korff M,
    3. Saunders K,
    4. Baluch WM,
    5. Simon GE
    . A chronic disease score with empirically derived weights. Med Care. 1995;33(8):783–795.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Fishman PA,
    2. Goodman MJ,
    3. Hornbrook MC,
    4. Meenan RT,
    5. Bachman DJ,
    6. O’Keeffe Rosetti MC
    . Risk adjustment using automated ambulatory pharmacy data: the RxRisk model. Med Care. 2003;41(1):84–99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Charlson ME,
    2. Pompei P,
    3. Ales KL,
    4. MacKenzie CR
    . A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–383.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Charlson ME,
    2. Charlson RE,
    3. Peterson JC,
    4. Marinopoulos SS,
    5. Briggs WM,
    6. Hollenberg JP
    . The Charlson comorbidity index is adapted to predict costs of chronic disease in primary care patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(12):1234–1240.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Romano PS,
    2. Roos LL,
    3. Jollis JG
    . Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(10):1075–1079, discussion 1081–1090.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Deyo RA,
    2. Cherkin DC,
    3. Ciol MA
    . Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(6):613–619.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. D’Hoore W,
    2. Sicotte C,
    3. Tilquin C
    . Risk adjustment in outcome assessment: the Charlson comorbidity index. Methods Inf Med. 1993;32(5): 382–387.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Ghali WA,
    2. Hall RE,
    3. Rosen AK,
    4. Ash AS,
    5. Moskowitz MA
    . Searching for an improved clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(3):273–278.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rius C,
    2. Rodriquez-Sanz M,
    3. Fernandez E
    . Comorbidity index was successfully validated among men but not in women. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(8):798–802.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Starfield B,
    2. Weiner J,
    3. Mumford L,
    4. Steinwachs D
    . Ambulatory care groups: a categorization of diagnoses for research and management. Health Serv Res. 1991;26(1):53–74.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Linn BS,
    2. Linn MW,
    3. Gurel L
    . Cumulative illness rating scale. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1968;16(5):622–626.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Miller MD,
    2. Paradis CF,
    3. Houck PR,
    4. et al
    . Rating chronic medical illness burden in geropsychiatric practice and research: application of the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale. Psychiatry Res. 1992;41(3):237–248.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Parkerson GR Jr.,
    2. Broadhead WE,
    3. Tse CK
    . The Duke Severity of Illness Checklist (DUSOI) for measurement of severity and comorbidity. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(4):379–393.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Parkerson GR Jr.,
    2. Harrell FE Jr.,
    3. Hammond WE,
    4. Wang XQ
    . Characteristics of adult primary care patients as predictors of future health services charges. Med Care. 2001;39(11):1170–1181.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Parkerson GR Jr.,
    2. Michener JL,
    3. Wu LR,
    4. et al
    . Associations among family support, family stress, and personal functional health status. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(3):217–229.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Elixhauser A,
    2. Steiner C,
    3. Harris DR,
    4. Coffey RM
    . Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36(1):8–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Selim AJ,
    2. Fincke G,
    3. Ren XS,
    4. et al
    . Comorbidity assessments based on patient report: results from the Veterans Health Study. J Ambul Care Manage. 2004;27(3):281–295.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Yeo J,
    2. Karimova G,
    3. Bansal S
    . Co-morbidity in older patients with COPD—its impact on health service utilisation and quality of life, a community study. Age Ageing. 2006;35(1):33–37.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Groll DL,
    2. To T,
    3. Bombardier C,
    4. Wright JG
    . The development of a comorbidity index with physical function as the outcome. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(6):595–602.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rozzini R,
    2. Frisoni GB,
    3. Ferrucci L,
    4. et al
    . Geriatric Index of Comorbidity: validation and comparison with other measures of comorbidity. Age Ageing. 2002;31(4):277–285.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Pope GC,
    2. Ellis RP,
    3. Ash AS,
    4. et al
    . Diagnostic Cost Group Hierarchical Condition Category Models for Medicare Risk Adjustment. Final Report to the Health Care Financing Adminstration Under Contract Number 500–95–048. Waltham, MA; Health Economics Research, Inc, December, 2000.
    1. Greenfield S,
    2. Sullivan L,
    3. Dukes KA,
    4. Silliman R,
    5. D’Agostino R,
    6. Kaplan SH
    . Development and testing of a new measure of case mix for use in office practice. Med Care. 1995;33(4 Suppl):AS47–AS55.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Fan VS,
    2. Au D,
    3. Heagerty P,
    4. Deyo RA,
    5. McDonell MB,
    6. Fihn SD
    . Validation of case-mix measures derived from self-reports of diagnoses and health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(4):371–380.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. DeSalvo KB,
    2. Fan VS,
    3. McDonell MB,
    4. Fihn SD
    . Predicting mortality and healthcare utilization with a single question. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(4):1234–1246.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sangha O,
    2. Stucki G,
    3. Liang MH,
    4. Fossel AH,
    5. Katz JN
    . The Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire: a new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;49(2):156–163.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Bayliss EA,
    2. Ellis JL,
    3. Steiner JF
    . Seniors’ self-reported multimorbidity captured biopsychosocial factors not incorporated into two other data-based morbidity measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(5):550–557, e1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bayliss EA,
    2. Ellis JL,
    3. Steiner JF,
    4. Main DS
    . Initial validation of an instrument to identify barriers to self-management for persons with co-morbidities. Chronic Illn. 2005;1(4):315–320.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Schubert CC,
    2. Boustani M,
    3. Callahan CM,
    4. et al
    . Comorbidity profile of dementia patients in primary care: are they sicker? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(1):104–109.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Vitry A,
    2. Wong SA,
    3. Roughead EE,
    4. Ramsay E,
    5. Barratt J
    . Validity of medication-based co-morbidity indices in the Australian elderly population. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2009;33(2):126–130.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. George J,
    2. Vuong T,
    3. Bailey MJ,
    4. Kong DC,
    5. Marriott JL,
    6. Stewart K
    . Development and validation of the medication-based disease burden index. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40(4):645–650.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Akner G
    . Analysis of multimorbidity in individual elderly nursing home residents. Development of a multimorbidity matrix. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2009;49(3):413–419.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Di Bari M,
    2. Virgillo A,
    3. Matteuzzi D,
    4. et al
    . Predictive validity of measures of comorbidity in older community dwellers: the Insufficienza Cardiaca negli Anziani Residenti a Dicomano Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(2):210–216.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Harpole LHW,
    2. Williams JW Jr.,
    3. Olsen MK,
    4. et al
    . Improving depression outcomes in older adults with comorbid medical illness. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2005;27(1):4–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Mayo NE,
    2. Nadeau L,
    3. Levesque L,
    4. Miller S,
    5. Poissant L,
    6. Tamblyn R
    . Does the addition of functional status indicators to case-mix adjustment indices improve prediction of hospitalization, institutionalization, and death in the elderly? Med Care. 2005;43(12):1194–1202.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Perkins AJK,
    2. Kroenke K,
    3. Unützer J,
    4. et al
    . Common comorbidity scales were similar in their ability to predict health care costs and mortality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(10):1040–1048.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Schneeweiss S,
    2. Wang PS,
    3. Avorn J,
    4. Maclure M,
    5. Levin R,
    6. Glynn RJ
    . Consistency of performance ranking of comorbidity adjustment scores in Canadian and U.S. utilization data. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(5 Pt 1):444–450.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Koike AK,
    2. Unützer J,
    3. Wells KB
    . Improving the care for depression in patients with comorbid medical illness. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159(10): 1738–1745.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Dominick KL,
    2. Dudley TK,
    3. Coffman CJ,
    4. Bosworth HB
    . Comparison of three comorbidity measures for predicting health service use in patients with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;53(5):666–672.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Dorr DA,
    2. Jones SS,
    3. Burns L,
    4. et al
    . Use of health-related, quality-of-life metrics to predict mortality and hospitalizations in community-dwelling seniors. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(4):667–673.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Tang J,
    2. Wan JY,
    3. Bailey JE
    . Performance of comorbidity measures to predict stroke and death in a community-dwelling, hypertensive Medicaid population. Stroke. 2008;39(7):1938–1944.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Walter LC,
    2. Lindquist K,
    3. Nugent S,
    4. et al
    . Impact of age and comorbidity on colorectal cancer screening among older veterans. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(7):465–473.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Hudon C,
    2. Fortin M,
    3. Vanasse A
    . Cumulative Illness Rating Scale was a reliable and valid index in a family practice context. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(6):603–608.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Fortin M,
    2. Hudon C,
    3. Dubois MF,
    4. Almirall J,
    5. Lapointe L,
    6. Soubhi H
    . Comparative assessment of three different indices of multimorbidity for studies on health-related quality of life. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bayliss EA,
    2. Ellis JL,
    3. Steiner JF
    . Subjective assessments of comorbidity correlate with quality of life health outcomes: initial validation of a comorbidity assessment instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:51–58.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Gabriel SE,
    2. Crowson CS,
    3. O’Fallon WM
    . A comparison of two comorbidity instruments in arthritis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(12):1137–1142.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Yan Y,
    2. Birman-Deych E,
    3. Radford MJ,
    4. Nilasena DS,
    5. Gage BF
    . Comorbidity indices to predict mortality from Medicare data: results from the national registry of atrial fibrillation. Med Care. 2005;43(11):1073–1077.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Fortin M,
    2. Bravo G,
    3. Hudon C,
    4. Lapointe L,
    5. Dubois MF,
    6. Almirall J
    . Psychological distress and multimorbidity in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4(5):417–422.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Diederichs C,
    2. Berger K,
    3. Bartels DB
    . The measurement of multiple chronic diseases—a systematic review on existing multimorbidity indices. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011;66(3):301–311.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Byles J,
    2. D’Ester C,
    3. Parkinson L,
    4. O’Connell R,
    5. Treloar C
    . Single index of multimorbidity did not predict multiple outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58(10):-997.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Tooth L,
    2. Hockey R,
    3. Byles J,
    4. Dobson A
    . Weighted multimorbidity indexes predicted mortality, health service use, and health-related quality of life in older women. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):151–159.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Harboun M,
    2. Ankri J
    . Comorbidity indexes: review of the literature and application to studies of elderly population. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2001;49(3):287–298.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Extermann M
    . Measuring comorbidity in older cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36(4):453–471.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    Institute for Health Policy. Risk adjustment methods and their relevance to “ pay or play”. Supplement E to the report: Challenges and Alternatives for Employer Pay or Play Program Design: An Implementation and Alternative Scenario Analysis of California’s “ Health Insurance Act of 2003” (SB 2). http://www.chcf.org/~/media/MEDIA%20LIBRARY%20Files/PDF/M/PDF%20MRMIBSB2SupERiskAdj.PDF. Accessed Nov 9, 2011.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 10 (2)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 10 (2)
Vol. 10, Issue 2
March/April 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • The Issue in Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Measures of Multimorbidity and Morbidity Burden for Use in Primary Care and Community Settings: A Systematic Review and Guide
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
3 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Measures of Multimorbidity and Morbidity Burden for Use in Primary Care and Community Settings: A Systematic Review and Guide
Alyson L. Huntley, Rachel Johnson, Sarah Purdy, Jose M. Valderas, Chris Salisbury
The Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2012, 10 (2) 134-141; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1363

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Measures of Multimorbidity and Morbidity Burden for Use in Primary Care and Community Settings: A Systematic Review and Guide
Alyson L. Huntley, Rachel Johnson, Sarah Purdy, Jose M. Valderas, Chris Salisbury
The Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2012, 10 (2) 134-141; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1363
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Impact of multimorbidity and complex multimorbidity on healthcare utilisation in older Australian adults aged 45 years or more: a large population-based cross-sectional data linkage study
  • Treatment burden in multiple long-term conditions: a mixed-methods study protocol
  • Ethnic differences in early onset multimorbidity and associations with health service use, long-term prescribing, years of life lost, and mortality: an observational study using person-level clustering in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink
  • Multimorbidity and its associated factors in Indonesia through universal health coverage scheme: A cross-sectional study based on national claims data
  • Measuring multimorbidity in research: Delphi consensus study
  • Impact of multimorbidity and complex multimorbidity on mortality among older Australians aged 45 years and over: a large population-based record linkage study
  • Variation in the estimated prevalence of multimorbidity: systematic review and meta-analysis of 193 international studies
  • Health conditions and the risk of home injury in French adults: results from a prospective study of the MAVIE cohort
  • Multimorbidity, psychoactive substance use and psychological distress among acute medically ill patients: a cross-sectional study
  • Multimorbidity Burden in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Population-based Cohort Study
  • Magnitude, pattern and correlates of multimorbidity among patients attending chronic outpatient medical care in Bahir Dar, northwest Ethiopia: the application of latent class analysis model
  • Older People With Type 2 Diabetes-Individualising Management With a Specialised Community Team (OPTIMISE): Perspectives of Participants on Care
  • Online and telephone access to general practice: a cross-sectional patient survey
  • Risk of all-cause mortality associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the role of healthy ageing trajectories: a population-based study of middle-aged and older adults
  • Prevalence, pattern and determinants of chronic disease multimorbidity in Nepal: secondary analysis of a national survey
  • Comorbidity accounts for severe COVID-19 risk, but how do we measure it? Retrospective assessment of the performance of three measures of comorbidity using 4,607 hospitalizations
  • Clustering of comorbidities
  • Development and performance of a population-based risk stratification model for COVID-19
  • Systematic review on the instruments used for measuring the association of the level of multimorbidity and clinically important outcomes
  • Retrospective cohort study to investigate the 10-year trajectories of disease patterns in patients with hypertension and/or diabetes mellitus on subsequent cardiovascular outcomes and health service utilisation: a study protocol
  • Socioeconomic inequalities in prevalence and development of multimorbidity across adulthood: findings from the MRC 1946 National Survey of Health & Development
  • Prevalence of multimorbidity in South Africa: a systematic review protocol
  • Health conditions and the risk of home injury in French adults: Results from a prospective study of the MAVIE cohort
  • Patient Interest in Video Integration for After-Hours Telemedicine
  • Development and internal validation of a multimorbidity index that predicts healthcare utilisation using the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
  • Measuring multimorbidity beyond counting diseases: systematic review of community and population studies and guide to index choice
  • Physical frailty and decline in general and specific cognitive abilities: the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936
  • Journey to multimorbidity: longitudinal analysis exploring cardiovascular risk factors and sociodemographic determinants in an urban setting
  • Cohort Profile: Extended Cohort for E-health, Environment and DNA (EXCEED)
  • Existing comorbidities in people with osteoarthritis: a retrospective analysis of a population-based cohort in Alberta, Canada
  • Multimorbidity of chronic non-communicable diseases and its models of care in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review protocol
  • Heart sounds: a pilot randomised trial to determine the feasibility and acceptability of audio recordings to improve discharge communication for cardiology inpatients protocol
  • Increasing age- and gender-specific burden and complexity of multimorbidity in Taiwan, 2003-2013: a cross-sectional study based on nationwide claims data
  • Impact of educational attainment on the association between social class at birth and multimorbidity in middle age in the Aberdeen Children of the 1950s cohort study
  • Prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people in primary care and its association with hospital admission: longitudinal study
  • Functional decline and associated factors in patients with multimorbidity at 8 months of follow-up in primary care: the functionality in pluripathological patients (FUNCIPLUR) longitudinal descriptive study
  • Person-level changes in oxycodone use after the introduction of a tamper-resistant formulation in Australia
  • Healthcare use for children with complex needs: using routine health data linked to a multiethnic, ongoing birth cohort
  • Association between perceived stress, multimorbidity and primary care health services: a Danish population-based cohort study
  • Effectiveness of a complex intervention on Prioritising Multimedication in Multimorbidity (PRIMUM) in primary care: results of a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial
  • Relationship of Opioid Prescriptions to Physical Therapy Referral and Participation for Medicaid Patients with New-Onset Low Back Pain
  • Contextual and individual inequalities of multimorbidity in Brazilian adults: a cross-sectional national-based study
  • Congruence of Patient Self-Rating of Health with Family Physician Ratings
  • Burden of multimorbidity in relation to age, gender and immigrant status: a cross-sectional study based on administrative data
  • Comparison of count-based multimorbidity measures in predicting emergency admission and functional decline in older community-dwelling adults: a prospective cohort study
  • Effectiveness of multidisciplinary team case management: difference-in-differences analysis
  • Impact of Case Mix Severity on Quality Improvement in a Patient-centered Medical Home (PCMH) in the Maryland Multi-Payor Program
  • Multimorbidity in primary care: protocol of a national cross-sectional study in Switzerland
  • Prevalence and outcomes of multimorbidity in South Asia: a systematic review
  • Prevalence of multimorbidity in the adult population attending primary care in Portugal: a cross-sectional study
  • Primary Care Physician Insights Into a Typology of the Complex Patient in Primary Care
  • A Population-Based Study Evaluating Family Physicians' HIV Experience and Care of People Living With HIV in Ontario
  • A population-based study comparing patterns of care delivery on the quality of care for persons living with HIV in Ontario
  • Panel Workload Assessment in US Primary Care: Accounting for Non-Face-to-Face Panel Management Activities
  • Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis?
  • Abnormal platelet count is an independent predictor of mortality in the elderly and is influenced by ethnicity
  • Multimorbidity, disability, and mortality in community-dwelling older adults
  • Multimorbidity in Patients Attending 2 Australian Primary Care Practices
  • GPs' perspectives on the management of patients with multimorbidity: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research
  • The Prevalence of Chronic Diseases and Multimorbidity in Primary Care Practice: A PPRNet Report
  • Adverse events recorded in English primary care: observational study using the General Practice Research Database
  • The effect of multiple chronic conditions on self-rated health, disability and quality of life among the older populations of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: a comparison of two nationally representative cross-sectional surveys
  • Aspects of Patient and Clinician Language Predict Adherence to Antidepressant Medication
  • Binocular Vision and Eye Movement Disorders in Older Adults
  • In This Issue: Assessing and Acting on Complexity
  • Toward a More Cogent Approach to the Challenges of Multimorbidity
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Chest Pain in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Risk Stratification Tools to Rule Out Acute Coronary Syndrome
  • Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Regimen for Mild/Moderately Severe COVID-19: A Rapid Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis
  • Clinically Important Benefits and Harms of Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting Amyloid for the Treatment of Alzheimer Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Show more Systematic Review

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Domains of illness & health:
    • Chronic illness
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other topics:
    • Multimorbidity

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine