ArticlePloS one2019
Prevalence of multiple chronic conditions in New York State, 2011-2016.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The evolution of comorbidities in chronic diseases among Chinese middle-aged and elderly people: Evidence from the CHARLS (2015-2020).PloS one · 2025Article
- Factors associated with self-management in older adults with multiple chronic conditions: a qualitative study.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Quality of life and associated factors among community-dwelling adults with multimorbidity in Shanghai, China: A cross-sectional study.Nursing open · 2023Article
- The impact of nurse practitioner and physician assistant workforce supply on Medicaid-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations.Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners · 2021Article
- Article
- A population-based measure of chronic disease severity for health planning and evaluation in the United States.AIMS public health · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo design effective policy and interventions, public health officials must have an accurate and granular picture of the state of multiple chronic conditions (MCC) in their region. The objective of this research is to describe the prevalence and distribution of MCC in New York State.
methodsWe performed a secondary data analysis of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) from 2011 through 2016 for New York adults (n = 76,186). We analyzed the self-reported prevalence of individuals having 0, 1, 2, or ≥ 3 chronic conditions by sex, race/ethnicity, age, health insurance type, annual household income, and whether respondents lived in New York City. We also examined the most common condition dyads and triads. Finally, we assessed the prevalence of MCC (2 or more chronic conditions) by county across New York State, and neighborhood within New York City.
resultsDuring 2011-2016, 25.2% of adults in New York State had zero chronic conditions, 24.1% had 1 condition, 18.4% had 2 conditions, and 32.4% had 3 or more. The most prevalent dyad was hypertension and high cholesterol in 17.0% of individuals. The most prevalent triad was hypertension, high cholesterol, and arthritis in 4.5% of individuals. County prevalence of MCC ranged from 42.6% in Westchester County to 66.1% in Oneida County. The prevalence of MCC in New York City neighborhoods ranged from 33.5% in Gramercy Park-Murray Hill to 60.6% in High Bridge-Morrisania.
conclusionThis research contributes to the field's understanding of multiple chronic conditions and allows policy and public health leaders in New York to better understand the prevalence and distribution of MCC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.