Management of diabetes patients with comorbidity in primary care: a mixed-method study in Odisha, India.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes patients with comorbidities need regular and comprehensive care for their disease management. Hence, it is essential to assess the primary care preparedness for managing diabetes patients and the perspectives of the diabetes patients on the care received at the primary care facilities. METHODS: All 21 Urban Primary Health Centres (UPHCs) in Bhubaneswar city of Odisha, India, were assessed using the modified Primary Care Evaluation Tool and WHO Package of Essential Non-communicable disease interventions questionnaire. Additionally, 21 diabetes patients with comorbidities were interviewed in-depth to explore their perception of the care received at the primary care facilities. RESULTS: All the UPHCs had provisions to meet the basic requirements for the management of diabetes and common comorbidities like hypertension. There were few provisions for chronic kidney illness, cardiovascular disease, mental health, and cancer. Diabetes patients felt that frequent change in primary care physicians at the primary care facilities affected their continuity of care. Easy accessibility, availability of free medicines, and provisions of basic laboratory tests at the facilities were felt to be necessary by the diabetes patients. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the existing gaps in India's healthcare system preparedness and the needs of diabetes patients with comorbidity. The government of India's Health and Wellness (HWC) scheme aims to deliver comprehensive healthcare to the population and provide holistic care at the primary care level for NCD patients. It is imperative that there is an early implementation of the various components of the HWC scheme to provide optimal care to diabetes patients.

Clusters of medical specialties around patients with multimorbidity - employing fuzzy c-means clustering to explore multidisciplinary collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Hospital care organization, structured around medical specialties and focused on the separate treatment of individual organ systems, is challenged by the increasing prevalence of multimorbidity. To support the hospitals' realization of multidisciplinary care, we hypothesized that using machine learning on clinical data helps to identify groups of medical specialties who are simultaneously involved in hospital care for patients with multimorbidity. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients in a Dutch general hospital and used a fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm for the analysis. We explored the patients' membership degrees in each cluster to identify subgroups of medical specialties that provide care to the same patients with multimorbidity. We used retrospectively collected electronic health record data from 2017. We extracted data from 22,133 patients aged ≥18 years who had received outpatient clinical care for two or more chronic and/ or oncological diagnoses. RESULTS: We found six clusters of medical specialties and identified 22 subgroups. The clusters were labeled based on the specialties that most characterized them: 1. dermatology/ plastic surgery, 2. six specialties (gynecology/ rheumatology/ orthopedic surgery/ urology/ gastroenterology/ otorhinolaryngology), 3. pulmonology, 4. internal medicine/ cardiology/ geriatrics, 5. neurology/ physiatry (rehabilitation)/ anesthesiology, and 6. internal medicine. Most patients had a full or dominant membership to one of these clusters of medical specialties (11 subgroups), whereas fewer patients had a membership to two clusters. The prevalence of specific diagnosis groups, patient characteristics, and healthcare utilization differed between subgroups. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that clusters and subgroups of medical specialties simultaneously involved in hospital care for patients with multimorbidity can be identified with fuzzy c-means cluster analysis using clinical data. Clusters and subgroups differed regarding the involved medical specialties, diagnoses, patient characteristics, and healthcare utilization. With this strategy, hospitals and medical specialists can further analyze which subgroups are target populations that might benefit from improved multidisciplinary collaboration.

Managing diabetes mellitus with comorbidities in primary healthcare facilities in urban settings: a qualitative study among physicians in Odisha, India.

AIM: To explore the perceived barriers and facilitators in the management of the patients having diabetes with comorbidities by primary care physicians. METHODS: A qualitative In-Depth Interview study was conducted among the primary care physicians at seventeen urban primary health care centres at Bhubaneswar city of Odisha, India. The digitally recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and translated into English. The data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Barriers related to physicians, patients and health system were identified. Physicians felt lack of necessary knowledge and skills, communication skills and overburdening due to multiple responsibilities to be major barriers to quality care. Patients' attitude and beliefs along with socio-economic status played an important role in treatment adherence and in the management of their disease conditions. Poor infrastructure, irregular medicine supply, and shortage of skilled allied health professionals were also found to be barriers to optimal care delivery, as was the lack of electronic medical records and personal treatment records. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive guidelines with on the job training for capacity building of the physicians and creation of multidisciplinary teams at primary care level for a more holistic approach towards management of diabetes with comorbidities could be the way forward to optimal delivery of care.

Optimising personal continuity for older patients in general practice: a study protocol for a cluster randomised stepped wedge pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: Continuity of care, in particular personal continuity, is a core principle of general practice and is associated with many benefits such as a better patient-provider relationship and lower mortality. However, personal continuity is under pressure due to changes in society and healthcare. This affects older patients more than younger patients. As the number of older patients will double the coming decades, an intervention to optimise personal continuity for this group is highly warranted. METHODS: Following the UK Medical Research Council framework for complex Interventions, we will develop and evaluate an intervention to optimise personal continuity for older patients in general practice. In phase 0, we will perform a literature study to provide the theoretical basis for the intervention. In phase I we will define the components of the intervention by performing surveys and focus groups among patients, general practitioners, practice assistants and practice nurses, concluded by a Delphi study among members of our group. In phase II, we will test and finalise the intervention with input from a pilot study in two general practices. In phase III, we will perform a stepped wedge cluster randomised pragmatic trial. The primary outcome measure is continuity of care from the patients' perspective, measured by the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures are level of implementation, barriers and facilitators for implementation, acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. In phase IV, we will establish the conditions for large-scale implementation. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to investigate an intervention for improving personal continuity for older patients in general practice. If proven effective, our intervention will enable General practitioners to improve the quality of care for their increasing population of older patients. The pragmatic design of the study will enable evaluation in real-life conditions, facilitating future implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register, trial NL8132 . Registered 2 November 2019.

α-Blockers for uncomplicated ureteric stones: a clinical practice guideline.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-based recommendation concerning the use of α-blockers for uncomplicated ureteric stones based on an up-to-date Cochrane review, as the role of medical expulsive therapy for uncomplicated ureteric stones remains controversial in the light of new contradictory trial evidence. METHODS: We applied the Rapid Recommendations approach to guideline development, which represents an innovative approach by an international collaborative network of clinicians, researchers, methodologists and patient representatives seeking to rapidly respond to new, potentially practice-changing evidence with recommendations developed according to standards for trustworthy guidelines. RESULTS: The panel suggests the use of α-blockers in addition to standard care over standard care alone in patients with uncomplicated ureteric stones (weak recommendation based on low-quality evidence). The panel judged that the net benefit of α-blockers was small and that there was considerable uncertainty about patients' values and preferences. This means that the panel expects that most patients would choose treatment with α-blockers but that a substantial proportion would not. This recommendation applies to both patients in whom the presence of ureteric stones is confirmed by imaging, as well as patients in whom the diagnosis is made based on clinical grounds only. CONCLUSION: The Rapid Recommendations panel suggests the use of α-blockers for patients with ureteric stones. Shared decision-making is emphasised in making the final choice between the treatment options.

A three-goal model for patients with multimorbidity: A qualitative approach.

BACKGROUND: To meet the challenge of multimorbidity in decision making, a switch from a disease-oriented to a goal-oriented approach could be beneficial for patients and clinicians. More insight about the concept and the implementation of this approach in clinical practice is needed. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop conceptual descriptions of goal-oriented care by examining the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and clinical geriatricians (CGs), and how the concept relates to collaborative communication and shared decision making with elderly patients with multimorbidity. METHOD: Qualitative interviews with GPs and CGs were conducted and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Clinicians distinguished disease- or symptom-specific goals, functional goals and a new type of goals, which we labelled as fundamental goals. "Fundamental goals" are goals specifying patient's priorities in life, related to their values and core relationships. These fundamental goals can be considered implicitly or explicitly in decision making or can be ignored. Reasons to explicate goals are the potential mismatch between medical standards and patient preferences and the need to know individual patient values in case of multimorbidity, including the management in acute situations. CONCLUSION: Based on the perspectives of clinicians, we expanded the concept of goal-oriented care by identifying a three-level goal hierarchy. This model could facilitate collaborative goal-setting for patients with multiple long-term conditions in clinical practice. Future research is needed to refine and validate this model and to provide specific guidance for medical training and practice.

The availability and effectiveness of tools supporting shared decision making in metastatic breast cancer care: a review.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) in the management of metastatic breast cancer care is associated with positive patient outcomes. In daily clinical practice, however, SDM is not fully integrated yet. Initiatives to improve the implementation of SDM would be helpful. The aim of this review was to assess the availability and effectiveness of tools supporting SDM in metastatic breast cancer care. METHODS: Literature databases were systematically searched for articles published since 2006 focusing on the development or evaluation of tools to improve information-provision and to support decision-making in metastatic breast cancer care. Internet searches and experts identified additional tools. Data from included tools were extracted and the evaluation of tools was appraised using the GRADE grading system. RESULTS: The literature search yielded five instruments. In addition, two tools were identified via internet searches and consultation of experts. Four tools were specifically developed for supporting SDM in metastatic breast cancer, the other three tools focused on metastatic cancer in general. Tools were mainly applicable across the care process, and usable for decisions on supportive care with or without chemotherapy. All tools were designed for patients to be used before a consultation with the physician. Effects on patient outcomes were generally weakly positive although most tools were not studied in well-designed studies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its recognized importance, only two tools were positively evaluated on effectiveness and are available to support patients with metastatic breast cancer in SDM. These tools show promising results in pilot studies and focus on different aspects of care. However, their effectiveness should be confirmed in well-designed studies before implementation in clinical practice. Innovation and development of SDM tools targeting clinicians as well as patients during a clinical encounter is recommended.

Review of guidance on recurrence risk management for general practitioners in breast cancer, colorectal cancer and melanoma guidelines.

Background: General practitioners (GPs) will face cancer recurrences more frequently due to the rising number of cancer survivors and greater involvement of GPs in the follow-up care. Currently, GPs are uncertain about managing recurrence risks and may need more guidance. Objective: To explore what guidance is available for GPs on managing recurrence risks for breast cancer, colorectal cancer and melanoma, and to examine whether recurrence risk management differs between these tumour types. Methods: Breast cancer, colorectal cancer and melanoma clinical practice guidelines were identified via searches on internet and the literature, and experts were approached to identify guidelines. Guidance on recurrence risk management that was (potentially) relevant for GPs was extracted and summarized into topics. Results: We included 24 breast cancer, 21 colorectal cancer and 15 melanoma guidelines. Identified topics on recurrence risk management were rather similar among the three tumour types. The main issue in the guidelines was recurrence detection through consecutive diagnostic testing. Guidelines agree on both routine and nonroutine tests, but, recommended frequencies for follow-up are inconsistent, except for mammography screening for breast cancer. Only six guidelines provided targeted guidance for GPs. Conclusion: This inventory shows that recurrence risk management has overlapping areas between tumour types, making it more feasible for GPs to provide this care. However, few guidance on recurrence risk management is specific for GPs. Recommendations on time intervals of consecutive diagnostic tests are inconsistent, making it difficult for GPs to manage recurrence risks and illustrating the need for more guidance targeted for GPs.

A framework for crafting clinical practice guidelines that are relevant to the care and management of people with multimorbidity.

Many patients of all ages have multiple conditions, yet clinicians often lack explicit guidance on how to approach clinical decision-making for such people. Most recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) focus on the management of single diseases, and may be harmful or impractical for patients with multimorbidity. A major barrier to the development of guidance for people with multimorbidity stems from the fact that the evidence underlying CPGs derives from studies predominantly focused on the management of a single disease. In this paper, the investigators from the Improving Guidelines for Multimorbid Patients Study Group present consensus-based recommendations for guideline developers to make guidelines more useful for the care of people with multimorbidity. In an iterative process informed by review of key literature and experience, we drafted a list of issues and possible approaches for addressing important coexisting conditions in each step of the guideline development process, with a focus on considering relevant interactions between the conditions, their treatments and their outcomes. The recommended approaches address consideration of coexisting conditions at all major steps in CPG development, from nominating and scoping the topic, commissioning the work group, refining key questions, ranking importance of outcomes, conducting systematic reviews, assessing quality of evidence and applicability, summarizing benefits and harms, to formulating recommendations and grading their strength. The list of issues and recommendations was reviewed and refined iteratively by stakeholders. This framework acknowledges the challenges faced by CPG developers who must make complex judgments in the absence of high-quality or direct evidence. These recommendations require validation through implementation, evaluation and refinement.

What are the key ingredients for effective public involvement in health care improvement and policy decisions? A randomized trial process evaluation.

CONTEXT: In the past 50 years, individual patient involvement at the clinical consultation level has received considerable attention. More recently, patients and the public have increasingly been involved in collective decisions concerning the improvement of health care and policymaking. However, rigorous evaluation guiding the development and implementation of effective public involvement interventions is lacking. This article describes those key ingredients likely to affect public members' ability to deliberate productively with professionals and influence collective health care choices. METHOD: We conducted a trial process evaluation of public involvement in setting priorities for health care improvement. In all, 172 participants (including 83 patients and public members and 89 professionals) from 6 Health and Social Services Centers in Canada participated in the trial. We video-recorded 14 one-day meetings, and 2 nonparticipant observers took structured notes. Using qualitative analysis, we show how public members influenced health care improvement priorities. FINDINGS: Legitimacy, credibility, and power explain the variations in the public members' influence. Their credibility was supported by their personal experience as patients and caregivers, the provision of a structured preparation meeting, and access to population-based data from their community. Legitimacy was fostered by the recruitment of a balanced group of participants and by the public members' opportunities to draw from one another's experience. The combination of small-group deliberations, wider public consultation, and a moderation style focused on effective group process helped level out the power differences between professionals and the public. The engagement of key stakeholders in the intervention design and implementation helped build policy support for public involvement. CONCLUSIONS: A number of interacting active ingredients structure and foster the public's legitimacy, credibility, and power. By paying greater attention to them, policymakers could develop and implement more effective public involvement interventions.

Towards efficient use of research resources: a nationwide database of ongoing primary care research projects in the Netherlands.

UNLABELLED: PURPOSE. Although in the last decades primary care research has evolved with great success, there is a growing need to prioritize the topics given the limited resources available. Therefore, we constructed a nationwide database of ongoing primary care research projects in the Netherlands, and we assessed if the distribution of research topics matched with primary care practice. METHODS: We conducted a survey among the main primary care research centres in the Netherlands and gathered details of all ongoing primary care research projects. We classified the projects according to research topic, relation to professional guidelines and knowledge deficits, collaborative partners and funding source. Subsequently, we compared the frequency distribution of clinical topics of research projects to the prevalence of problems in primary care practice. RESULTS: We identified 296 ongoing primary care research projects from 11 research centres. Most projects were designed as randomized controlled trial (35%) or observational cohort (34%), and government funded mostly (60%). Thematically, most research projects addressed chronic diseases, mainly cardiovascular risk management (8%), depressive disorders (8%) and diabetes mellitus (7%). One-fifth of the projects was related to defined knowledge deficits in primary care guidelines. From a clinical primary care perspective, research projects on dermatological problems were significantly underrepresented (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This survey of ongoing projects demonstrates that primary care research has a firm basis in the Netherlands, with a strong focus on chronic disease. The fit with primary care practice can improve, and future research should address knowledge deficits in professional guidelines more.

Healthcare system performance improvement: a comparison of key policies in seven high-income countries.

PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that healthcare system performance may be improved with policy emphasis on primary care, quality improvement, and information technology. The authors therefore sought to investigate the extent to which policy makers in seven countries are emphasizing these areas. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Policies in these three areas in seven high-income countries were compared. A comparative descriptive approach was taken in which each of the country-specialist authors supplied information on key policies and developments pertaining to primary care, quality improvement and information technology, supplemented with routine data. FINDINGS: Each of the seven countries faces similar challenges with healthcare system performance, yet differs in emphasis on the three key policy areas; efforts in each are, at best, patchy. The authors conclude that there is substantial scope for policy makers to further emphasize primary care, quality improvement and information technology if aiming for high-performing healthcare systems. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This is the first study to investigate policy-makers' commitment to key areas known to improve health system performance. The comparative method illustrates the different emphases that countries have placed on primary care, quality improvement and information technology development.

Treatment for neuropathic pain in patients with cancer: comparative analysis of recommendations in national clinical practice guidelines from European countries.

INTRODUCTION: Neuropathic pain is a common symptom, present in 39% of the patients with cancer pain. Treating this type of pain is challenging, as this patient group is often frail and has comorbidities which increase the risk of side events and hence influences their quality of life. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can be helpful for clinicians, especially when scientific evidence is uncertain or weak. In this study, we focused on the quality of the review of the literature used in treatment recommendations in the selected European CPGs. METHODS: In a previous study, 9 CPGs from European countries that contained at least one paragraph on treatment for neuropathic pain in cancer were included. Recommendations with their grade (according SIGN 55 classification) and supporting literature (first author, patients' population, year and type of publication) were compared between CPGs. RESULTS: In all CPGs, amitriptylin was mentioned as the drug of first choice. Six guidelines proposed also gabapentinoids. Only 30 of the 163 citations (18%) were based on studies in patients with cancer. Seven CPGs did not argue the indirect evidence due to extrapolation of study results from non-cancer to patients with cancer. CONCLUSION: The majority of guideline development groups extrapolated their results from non-cancer publications to formulate recommendations. Consequently, these guidelines fail to address important issues such as altered kinetics and side effect profiles in these patients. We recommend creating specific recommendations by an international expert group for the treatment for neuropathic pain in patients with cancer supported by targeted research in patients with cancer.

Effects of a multicomponent communication training to involve older people in decisions to DEPRESCRIBE cardiometabolic medication in primary care (CO-DEPRESCRIBE): protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing of medication for cardiovascular risk factors and diabetes has been incorporated in clinical guidelines but proves to be difficult to implement in primary care. Training of healthcare providers is needed to enhance deprescribing in eligible patients. This study will examine the effects of a blended training program aimed at initiating and conducting constructive deprescribing consultations with patients. METHODS: A cluster-randomized trial will be conducted in which local pharmacy-general practice teams in the Netherlands will be randomized to conducting clinical medication reviews with patients as usual (control) or after receiving the CO-DEPRESCRIBE training program (intervention). People of 75 years and older using specific cardiometabolic medication (diabetes drugs, antihypertensives, statins) and eligible for a medication review will be included. The CO-DEPRESCRIBE intervention is based on previous work and applies models for patient-centered communication and shared decision making. It consists of 5 training modules with supportive tools. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients with at least 1 cardiometabolic medication deintensified. Secondary outcomes include patient involvement in decision making, healthcare provider communication skills, health/medication-related outcomes, attitudes towards deprescribing, medication regimen complexity and health-related quality of life. Additional safety and cost parameters will be collected. It is estimated that 167 patients per study arm are needed in the final intention-to-treat analysis using a mixed effects model. Taking loss to follow-up into account, 40 teams are asked to recruit 10 patients each. A baseline and 6-months follow-up assessment, a process evaluation, and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted. DISCUSSION: The hypothesis is that the training program will lead to more proactive and patient-centered deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication. By a comprehensive evaluation, an increase in knowledge needed for sustainable implementation of deprescribing in primary care is expected. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT05507177).

Required knowledge for guideline panel members to develop healthcare related testing recommendations: a developmental study.

OBJECTIVES: To define the minimum knowledge required for guideline panel members (healthcare professionals and consumers) involved in developing recommendations about healthcare related testing. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A developmental study with a multistaged approach. We derived a first set of knowledge components from literature and subsequently performed semistructured interviews with 9 experts. We refined the set of knowledge components and checked it with the interviewees for final approval. RESULTS: Understanding the test-management pathway, for example, how test results should be used in context of decisions about interventions, is the key knowledge component. The final list includes 26 items on the following topics: health question, test-management pathway, target population, test, test result, interpretation of test results and subsequent management, and impact on people important outcomes. For each item, the required level of knowledge is defined. CONCLUSION: We developed a list of knowledge components required for guideline panels to formulate recommendations on healthcare related testing. The list could be used to design specific training programs for guideline panel members when developing recommendations about tests and testing strategies in healthcare.

Guidelines for neuropathic pain management in patients with cancer: a European survey and comparison.

UNLABELLED: Between 19% and 39% of patients with cancer pain suffer from neuropathic pain. Its diagnosis and treatment is still challenging. Yet, national clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed in several European countries to assist practitioners in managing these patients safely and legally. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the development and reporting of these CPGs. METHODS: In collaboration with the European Federation of IASP Chapters, a European inventory of CPGs was conducted. Inclusion criteria were at least one paragraph dedicated to the treatment of neuropathic pain in cancer. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II instrument, 2 appraisers independently assessed the quality of the development process of the included CPGs in 6 quality domains. Besides, CPGs developed by governmental organization were compared with those developed by professional societies using t-tests. RESULTS: Mean scores of the domains "scope and purpose" (80%) and "clarity of presentation" (61%) were satisfactory, "stakeholder involvement" (58%), "rigor of development" (57%), and "editorial independence" (53%) were acceptable, and "applicability" was insufficient (39%). Governmental guidelines had higher quality scores than professional society guidelines for domain "stakeholder involvement" and "editorial independence" (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the development process of the 9 included CPGs varied widely. CPGs should be developed within a structured guideline program, including methodological support. As developing a CPG is expensive and time-consuming, we recommend more international cooperation to increase quality and lower the development costs.

Diagnosing neuropathic pain in patients with cancer: comparative analysis of recommendations in national guidelines from European countries.

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain is a prevalent symptom in patients with cancer, which needs a more specific algorithm than nociceptive pain or neuropathic pain from other origin. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can be helpful in optimizing the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. METHODS: In this study, 9 national CPGs in Europe on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer were included. Recommendations with their grade (according SIGN 55 classification) and supporting literature (first author, patients' population, year, and type of publication) were compared between CPGs. RESULTS: Nine CPGs including recommendations on neuropathic pain could be selected and were assessed. In total, they used 149 references of which 72 (48%) were about cancer conditions, 39 (26%) about neuropathic pain, and only 3 about neuropathic pain in patients with cancer (2%). Only 28 (19%) references were shared between 2 or more guidelines. There was only one shared reference specifically related to cancer neuropathic pain. Recommendations and their evidence grading strongly differ between CPGs. CONCLUSION: This work demonstrates an important heterogeneity between European recommendations on diagnosis and assessment of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. The main weaknesses are the low level of evidence and the absence of specific data focusing on neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. We recommend that physicians dealing with neuropathic pain in patients with cancer should be specially trained, that a specific methodology to develop CPGs should followed, and that specific research should be developed on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer.

[Managing multimorbidity is more than counting the number of conditions]. / Zorg voor multimorbiditeit is meer dan het tellen van ziektes.

The prevalence of patients with multimorbidity, defined by two chronic conditions is rapidly increasing. Defining multimorbidity remains challenging, with varying criteria in research. A recent study by MacRae et al. examined the impact of the number and selection of conditions on estimated multimorbidity prevalence, revealing significant variations from 4.6% to 40.5%. To standardize the definition for research, MacRae et al. recommend using three measurement instruments (Ho always + usually, Barnett, or Fortin condition-lists) to consistently measure prevalence over time. Multimorbidity's complexity is not adequately captured by dichotomous definitions, as this depends on context and purpose. Chronic diseases profoundly affect daily life, leading to reduced physical function and adverse psychosocial outcomes. Patients often experience increased stress, anxiety, and depression, which can further exacerbate somatic conditions. To assess multimorbidity from a patient perspective, considering experienced health and quality of life indicators like ADL functioning, mobility, mood, memory, and social factors is crucial. Effectively managing multimorbidity requires a holistic, tailored approach, including identifying and prioritizing key health issues, promoting self-management, proactive care planning, and coordinating treatments. Understanding the potential for differential treatment effects and considering individual life expectancy is vital. Multimorbidity also places a significant burden on healthcare systems, leading to fragmented care, communication gaps, and increased costs. Identifying complex disease clusters with high mortality and resource utilization can guide integrated care efforts. In less complex cases, primary care physicians can collaborate to provide comprehensive care. Multimorbidity remains a priority in healthcare, necessitating appropriate measurement and tailored interventions for diverse populations.