ArticleJournal of multimorbidity and comorbidity
The role of primary care data in multimorbidity estimates using administrative health data.
Article in Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidity. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: This study aims to investigate the extent to which two frequently used multimorbidity measures, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and the 2+ count of chronic diseases, are underestimated when primary care data are absent, and to examine if this varies by sociodemographic factors. Methods: This register-based study included adults, aged 60 years and older, living in Stockholm, Sweden from 2017-2022 (n=497736). Multimorbidity was operationalized as 1) 2+ chronic diseases from a list of 60 and 2) CCI score of 2+. The multimorbidity prevalences were calculated using only outpatient specialist and hospital data, then after adding primary care data. The proportion of the prevalence underestimated without primary care data was estimated for both measures. Stratified analyses were conducted to assess the underestimation by age, sex, education, cohabitation, and care status. Findings: Without primary care data, approximately 20% of individuals with multimorbidity were missed (2+count: 19.4%,95%CI:19.3%-19.5%; 2+CCI: 23.9%,95%CI:23.8%-24.0%). The proportion of missed cases was highest among community-dwelling individuals (2+count: 21.0%,95%CI:20.8%-21.1%; 2+CCI: 25.5%,95%CI:25.3%-25.6%) and decreased with greater social care need (home care: 2+count: 4.33%,95%CI:4.09%-4.58%; 2+CCI: 16.0%,95%CI:15.5%-16.4%; nursing homes: 2+count: 7.78%,95%CI:7.35%-8.22%, 2+CCI: 18.0%,95%CI:17.3%-18.6%). The underestimation without primary care was greater among younger age groups for the 2+count, and women and older individuals for the 2+CCI. Interpretation: Multimorbidity is underestimated without primary care data, particularly among community-dwelling and independent older adults, as well as the youngest and oldest segments of the older population. Caution is warranted when comparing multimorbidity across age groups, care status, or social factors in the absence of primary care data.
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.