Patient-centred innovation for multimorbidity care: a mixed-methods, randomised trial and qualitative study of the patients' experience

Influence of health-system change on treatment burden: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Treatment burden is a patient-centred concept describing the effort required of people to look after their health and the impact this has on their functioning and wellbeing. High treatment burden is more likely for people with multiple long-term conditions (LTCs). Validated treatment burden measures exist, but have not been widely used in practice or as research outcomes.

AIM

To establish whether changes in organisation and delivery of health systems and services improve aspects contributing to treatment burden for people with multiple LTCs.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of system-level interventions on at least one outcome relevant to previously defined treatment burden domains among adults with ≥2 LTCs.

METHOD

The Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched for terms related to multimorbidity, system-level change, and treatment burden published between January 2010 and July 2021. Treatment burden domains were derived from validated measures and qualitative literature. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) methodology was used to synthesise results and study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias (version 2) tool.

RESULTS

The searches identified 1881 articles, 18 of which met the review inclusion criteria. Outcomes were grouped into seven domains. There was some evidence for the effect of system-level interventions on some domains, but the studies exhibited substantial heterogeneity, limiting the synthesis of results. Some concern over bias gave low confidence in study results.

CONCLUSION

System-level interventions may affect some treatment burden domains. However, adoption of a standardised outcome set, incorporating validated treatment burden measures, and the development of standard definitions for care processes in future research would aid study comparability.

Effect of a multimorbidity intervention on health care utilization and costs in Ontario: randomized controlled trial and propensity-matched analyses

BACKGROUND

Patients with multimorbidity require coordinated and patient-centred care. Telemedicine IMPACT Plus provides such care for complex patients in Toronto, Ontario. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing health care utilization and costs at 1-year postintervention for an intervention group and 2 control groups (RCT and propensity matched).

METHODS

Data for 82 RCT intervention and 74 RCT control participants were linked with health administrative data. We created a second control group using health administrative data-derived propensity scores to match (1:5) intervention participants with comparators. We evaluated 5 outcomes: acute hospital admissions, emergency department visits, costs of all insured health care, 30-day hospital readmissions and 7-day family physician follow-up after hospital discharge using generalized linear models for RCT controls and generalized estimating equations for propensity-matched controls.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between intervention participants and either control group. For hospital admissions, emergency department visits, costs and readmissions, the relative differences ranged from 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-2.60) to 1.67 (95% CI 0.82-3.38) with intervention costs at about Can$20 000, RCT controls costs at around Can$15 000 and propensity controls costs at around Can$17 000. There was a higher rate of follow-up with a family physician for the intervention participants compared with the RCT controls (53.13 v. 21.43 per 100 hospital discharges; relative difference 2.48 [95% CI 0.98-6.29]) and propensity-matched controls (49.94 v. 28.21 per 100 hospital discharges; relative difference 1.81 [95% CI 0.99-3.30]).

INTERPRETATION

Despite a complex patient-centred intervention, there was no significant improvement in health care utilization or cost. Future research requires larger sample sizes and should include outcomes important to patients and the health care system, and longer follow-up periods.

ONTARIO

ClinicalTrials.gov : 104191.

Responding to vulnerable patients with multimorbidity: an interprofessional team approach

Background

People with multimorbidity, who may be more vulnerable to certain social determinants of health, often require care by an interprofessional primary healthcare (PHC) team that can tailor their approach to address the multiple and complex needs of this population. This paper describes how the needs of vulnerable patients experiencing multimorbidity are identified and provided care by innovative interprofessional PHC teams during an innovative one-hour consultation, outside of usual care.

Methods

This was a descriptive qualitative study. Forty-eight interviews were conducted with 20 allied healthcare professionals: (e.g., social work, pharmacy); 19 physicians (e.g., psychiatry, internal medicine, family medicine); and 9 decision makers. The thematic analysis was iterative using an individual and team approach to identify the main themes and exemplar quotations for illustration.

Results

Participants described patients with multimorbidity who were vulnerable as those experiencing major challenges accessing and navigating the healthcare system. Mental health issues were a major contributor to being vulnerable and often linked to common social determinants of health. Cultural factors were identified as potentially causing patients to be vulnerable. Participants articulated how the collaborative nature of the team generated new ideas and facilitated creative recommendations designed to meet the specific needs of each patient.

Conclusions

This one-time consultation went beyond the assessment of a patient’s multimorbidity by including a psycho-social-contextual understanding of vulnerability within the healthcare system. Findings may have important clinical and policy implications in the adoption and implementation of this approach and further assist vulnerable patients with multimorbidity in having their complex needs addressed.

Challenges in Multimorbidity Research: Lessons Learned From the Most Recent Randomized Controlled Trials in Primary Care

Multimorbidity has received much attention and there is a growing number of original studies. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving outcomes for patient with multimorbidity in primary care. The purpose of this article is to synthesize and analyze the most recent RCTs to identify the factors that may have contribute to the success or lack of success in order to draw lessons to inform further development in intervention research. A scoping review was conducted to include current up-to-date state-of-the-art studies in primary care published from 2019. Nine articles reporting on six RCTs studies were included in the review. The findings were mixed, with primary outcomes showing no differences between intervention and control groups in four of the six but differences in secondary outcomes in all six. All studies involved family practice patients but interventions took place at different sites, and the time between the beginning of the intervention and the time of evaluation of outcomes varied across studies. Authors reported issues regarding the need for training of care teams, the roles and composition of the teams, the selection of patients and implementation barriers of the complex interventions in trying contexts with not enough time for the changes required. The randomized controlled design may not be the best evaluation design given the complexity of the interventions, and alternative designs should be considered in which qualitative components are included. Further attention to outcome measures and to equity issues is recommended.

Prevalence of multimorbid degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with knee or hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal multimorbidity is common and coexisting lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) has been reported. The aim of this review was to report the prevalence of multimorbid degenerative LSS with knee or hip OA based on clinical and/or imaging case definitions.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL up to May 2021. Studies involving adults with cross-sectional data to estimate the prevalence of co-occurring LSS with knee or hip OA were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Results were stratified according to index and comorbid condition, and by case definitions (imaging, clinical, and combined).

RESULTS

Ten studies from five countries out of 3891 citations met the inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 44 to 2,857,999 (median 230) and the mean age in the included studies range from 61 to 73 years (median 66 years). All studies were from secondary care or mixed settings. Nine studies used a combined definition of LSS and one used a clinical definition. Imaging, clinical, and combined case definitions of knee and hip OA were used. The prevalence of multimorbid LSS and knee or hip OA ranged from 0 to 54%, depending on the specified index condition and case definitions used. Six studies each provided prevalence data for index LSS and comorbid knee OA (prevalence range: 5 to 41%) and comorbid hip OA (prevalence range: 2 to 35%). Two studies provided prevalence data for index knee OA and comorbid LSS (prevalence range 17 to 54%). No studies reporting prevalence data for index hip OA and comorbid LSS were found. Few studies used comparable case definitions and all but one study were rated as high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that multimorbid LSS with knee or hip OA occurs in people (0 to 54%), although results are based on studies with high risk of bias and surgical populations. Variability in LSS and OA case definitions limit the comparability of studies and prevalence estimates should therefore be interpreted with caution.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ( CRD42020177759 ).

One year follow-up and exploratory analysis of a patient-centered interdisciplinary care intervention for multimorbidity

Context

Interventions for people with multimorbidity have obtained mixed results. We aimed to document the long-term effect of an intervention for people with multimorbidity.

Methods

284 patients (18-80 years) presenting three or more chronic conditions were recruited from seven family medicine groups in the Saguenay-Lac St-Jean region, Quebec, Canada. The patient-centered intervention was based on motivational approach and self-management support. Outcomes were evaluated in a one-year pre-post study design with questionnaires that included the Health Education Questionnaire (heiQ), the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Diseases, the Veteran RAND-12 Health Survey (VR-12), the EuroQoL 5-Domains questionnaire, the Kessler six item Psychological Stress Scale, and measures of smoking habit, physical activity, healthy eating and alcohol consumption. Subgroup analyses by age, number of conditions, sex, and income were also conducted.

Results

The heiQ domain of emotional wellbeing improved significantly. Improvement was also observed for the VR-12 and the K6. Among the health behaviours, only healthy eating was improved. Subgroup analyses in this exploratory study suggest that younger patients, those with lower number of chronic conditions or higher incomes may respond better in relation to self-management, health status and health behaviours.

Conclusion

One year after the intervention, participants significantly improved a variety of outcomes. Subgroup analyses suggest that younger patients, those with lower number of chronic conditions or higher incomes may respond better in relation to self-management, health status and health behaviours. This suggests that future interventions should be tailored to patients' characteristics including age, sex, income and number of conditions.