Measuring Multimorbidity: Selecting the Right Instrument for the Purpose and the Data Source.

BACKGROUND: Adults have a higher prevalence of multimorbidity-or having multiple chronic health conditions-than having a single condition in isolation. Researchers, health care providers, and health policymakers find it challenging to decide upon the most appropriate assessment tool from the many available multimorbidity measures. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe a broad range of instruments and data sources available to assess multimorbidity and offer guidance about selecting appropriate measures. DESIGN: Instruments were reviewed and guidance developed during a special expert workshop sponsored by the National Institutes of Health on September 25-26, 2018. RESULTS: Workshop participants identified 4 common purposes for multimorbidity measurement as well as the advantages and disadvantages of 5 major data sources: medical records/clinical assessments, administrative claims, public health surveys, patient reports, and electronic health records. Participants surveyed 15 instruments and 2 public health data systems and described characteristics of the measures, validity, and other features that inform tool selection. Guidance on instrument selection includes recommendations to match the purpose of multimorbidity measurement to the measurement approach and instrument, review available data sources, and consider contextual and other related constructs to enhance the overall measurement of multimorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of multimorbidity measurement can be enhanced with appropriate measurement selection, combining data sources and special considerations for fully capturing multimorbidity burden in underrepresented racial/ethnic populations, children, individuals with multiple Adverse Childhood Events and older adults experiencing functional limitations, and other geriatric syndromes. The increased availability of comprehensive electronic health record systems offers new opportunities not available through other data sources.

Scaling Up Patient-Centered Interdisciplinary Care for Multimorbidity: A Pragmatic Mixed-Methods Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To measure the effectiveness of a 4-month interdisciplinary multifaceted intervention based on a change in care delivery for patients with multimorbidity in primary care practices. METHODS: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial with a mixed-methods design in patients aged 18 to 80 years with 3 or more chronic conditions from 7 family medicine groups (FMGs) in Quebec, Canada. Health care professionals (nurses, nutritionists, kinesiologists) from the FMGs were trained to deliver the patient-centered intervention based on a motivational approach and self-management support. Primary outcomes: self-management (Health Education Impact Questionnaire); and self-efficacy. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: health status, quality of life, and health behaviors. Quantitative analyses used multi-level mixed effects and generalized linear mixed models controlling for clustering within FMGs. We also conducted in-depth interviews with patients, family members, and health care professionals. RESULTS: The trial randomized 284 patients (144 in intervention group, 140 in control group). The groups were comparable. After 4 months, the intervention showed a neutral effect for the primary outcomes. There was significant improvement in 2 health behaviors (healthy eating with odds ratios [OR] 4.36; P = .006, and physical activity with OR 3.43; P = .023). The descriptive qualitative evaluation revealed that the patients reinforced their self-efficacy and improved their self-management which was divergent from the quantitative results. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitatively, this intervention showed a neutral effect on the primary outcomes and substantial improvement in 2 health behaviors as secondary outcomes. Qualitatively, the intervention was evaluated as positive. The combination of qualitative and quantitative designs proved to be a good design for evaluating this complex intervention.

Understanding patient outcomes to develop a multimorbidity adapted patient-reported outcomes measure: a qualitative description of patient and provider perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is a complex health situation that requires interventions tailored to patient needs; the outcomes of such interventions are difficult to evaluate. The purpose of this study was to describe the outcomes of patient-centred interventions for people with multimorbidity from the patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives. METHODS: This study followed a qualitative descriptive design. Nine patients with multimorbidity and 18 healthcare professionals (nurses, general practitioners, nutritionists, and physical and respiratory therapists), participating in a multimorbidity-adapted intervention in primary care were recruited. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with 12 open-ended questions. Triangulation of disciplines among interviewers, research team debriefing, data saturation assessment and iterative data collection and analysis ensured a rigorous research process. RESULTS: Outcome constructs described by participants covered a wide range of themes and were grouped into seven outcome domains: Health Management, Physical Health, Functional Status, Psychosocial Health, Health-related Behaviours, General Health and Health Services. The description of constructs by stakeholders provides valuable insight on how outcomes are experienced and worded by patients. CONCLUSION: Participants described a wide range of outcome constructs, which were relevant to and observable by patients and were in line with the clinical reality. The description provides a portrait of multimorbidity-adapted intervention outcomes that are significant for the selection and development of clinical research outcome measures.

Evaluating the content of a patient-reported outcome measure for people with multimorbidity: a Delphi consensus.

PURPOSE: Evidence supporting multimorbidity-adapted interventions is scarce, mostly due to a lack of adapted outcome measures. Measurement constructs for a novel patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) were defined in previous studies using a literature review, a qualitative description from stakeholders, and an item pool identification process. The aim of this study was to attain consensus on the content of this novel PROM. METHODS: A three-round electronic modified Delphi technique was conducted using an academic and clinical expert panel. Using a Likert scale, the panel rated the relevance, improvability, and self-ratability of each construct and item of the preliminary version of the PROM. The main outcome was consensus attainment, defined as strong (≥ 70%), moderate (50-69%) or low agreement (< 50%). Constructs and items with strong consensus were kept, moderate were sent to the next round and low agreement were rejected. RESULTS: From the 61 experts contacted, 39 participated in the first round of the Delphi, with a 12.8% attrition at the second round (n = 34) and 38.2% at the third round (n = 21). The panel included mostly female academic experts from nursing and medicine backgrounds. The preliminary PROM included 19 constructs and 70 items; from these, 16 constructs and 50 items attained consensus. The consensus attainment process excluded three constructs and their items: awareness, weight control and social integration. CONCLUSION: Consensus was reached for a patient-reported outcome measure adapted for people with multimorbidity including 50 relevant, improvable and self-ratable items categorized under 16 constructs. As more interventions tailored to multimorbidity are implemented, there is an increasing need for a valid measure of the effectiveness of these interventions.

Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.

BACKGROUND: Many people with chronic disease have more than one chronic condition, which is referred to as multimorbidity. The term comorbidity is also used but this is now taken to mean that there is a defined index condition with other linked conditions, for example diabetes and cardiovascular disease. It is also used when there are combinations of defined conditions that commonly co-exist, for example diabetes and depression. While this is not a new phenomenon, there is greater recognition of its impact and the importance of improving outcomes for individuals affected. Research in the area to date has focused mainly on descriptive epidemiology and impact assessment. There has been limited exploration of the effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of health-service or patient-oriented interventions designed to improve outcomes in people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and seven other databases to 28 September 2015. We also searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field for completed or ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised clinical trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. This includes studies where participants can have combinations of any condition or have combinations of pre-specified common conditions (comorbidity), for example, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. The comparison was usual care as delivered in that setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality, and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of the results where possible and carried out a narrative synthesis for the remainder of the results. We present the results in a 'Summary of findings' table and tabular format to show effect sizes across all outcome types. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 17 RCTs examining a range of complex interventions for people with multimorbidity. Nine studies focused on defined comorbid conditions with an emphasis on depression, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The remaining studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older people. In 11 studies, the predominant intervention element was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In six studies, the interventions were predominantly patient-oriented, for example, educational or self-management support-type interventions delivered directly to participants. Overall our confidence in the results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from low to high certainty. There was little or no difference in clinical outcomes (based on moderate certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved (based on high certainty evidence) and there were modest reductions in mean depression scores for the comorbidity studies that targeted participants with depression (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.63 to -0.2). There was probably a small improvement in patient-reported outcomes (moderate certainty evidence). The intervention may make little or no difference to health service use (low certainty evidence), may slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty evidence), probably slightly improves patient-related health behaviours (moderate certainty evidence), and probably improves provider behaviour in terms of prescribing behaviour and quality of care (moderate certainty evidence). Cost data were limited. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies the emerging evidence to support policy for the management of people with multimorbidity and common comorbidities in primary care and community settings. There are remaining uncertainties about the effectiveness of interventions for people with multimorbidity in general due to the relatively small number of RCTs conducted in this area to date, with mixed findings overall. It is possible that the findings may change with the inclusion of large ongoing well-organised trials in future updates. The results suggest an improvement in health outcomes if interventions can be targeted at risk factors such as depression in people with co-morbidity.

The prevalence of multimorbidity in primary care: a comparison of two definitions of multimorbidity with two different lists of chronic conditions in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of multimorbidity varies widely due to the lack of consensus in defining multimorbidity. This study aimed to measure the prevalence of multimorbidity in a primary care setting using two definitions of multimorbidity with two different lists of chronic conditions. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 787,446 patients, aged 0 to 99 years, who consulted a family physician between July 2015 to June 2016. Multimorbidity was defined as 'two or more' (MM2+) or 'three or more' (MM3+) chronic conditions using the Fortin list and Chronic Disease Management Program (CDMP) list of chronic conditions. Crude and standardised prevalence rates were reported, and the corresponding age, sex or ethnic-stratified standardised prevalence rates were adjusted to the local population census. RESULTS: The number of patients with multimorbidity increased with age. Age-sex-ethnicity standardised prevalence rates of multimorbidity using MM2+ and MM3+ for Fortin list (25.9, 17.2%) were higher than those for CDMP list (22.0%; 12.4%). Sex-stratified, age-ethnicity standardised prevalence rates for MM2+ and MM3+ were consistently higher in males compared to females for both lists. Chinese and Indians have the highest standardised prevalence rates among the four ethnicities using MM2+ and MM3+ respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MM3+ was better at identifying a smaller number of patients with multimorbidity requiring higher needs compared to MM2+. Using the Fortin list seemed more appropriate than the CDMP list because the chronic conditions in Fortin's list were more commonly seen in primary care. A consistent definition of multimorbidity will help researchers and clinicians to understand the epidemiology of multimorbidity better.

Nurturing a culture of curiosity in family medicine and primary care: The Section of Researchers' Blueprint 2 (2018-2023).

OBJECTIVE: To describe Blueprint 2 (2018-2023), the 5-year strategic plan launched in 2018 by the Section of Researchers (SOR), as well as its guiding principles and the process used to develop it. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE: Blueprint 2 was co-created by many stakeholders from across Canada and led by the SOR Council (SORC). The process started with an external, commissioned program evaluation in 2017 of the effect of the first SOR Blueprint (2012-2017). The findings and recommendations arising from the evaluation were presented in a day-long facilitated invitational retreat, hosted by the SORC in September 2017 and involving 40 key stakeholders. METHODS: Blueprint 2 was created using a multi-pronged, participatory, and iterative process to ensure broad input and alignment with current and future opportunities and priorities. REPORT: Blueprint 2 incorporates 4 strategic priority areas, each supported by objectives and actions. The strategic priority areas are membership, capacity building, advocacy, and partnerships. This updated Blueprint provides a useful, membership-driven strategic plan specifically for the SOR. The implementation of its objectives will promote research and quality improvement and contribute to building a culture of curiosity. Blueprint 2 emphasizes research and quality improvement that emanate from the realities of everyday practice and are rooted in everyday work. At its core are patient- and community-oriented approaches; it also contributes to achieving the Quadruple Aim. These outcomes will further the integration of the scholar role into daily practice for family physicians and primary care clinicians and teams. CONCLUSION: The ability of family physicians to identify, study, and cite their own evidence is essential to establishing the value and effect of primary care, including family medicine, in relation to Canadians' health and the Canadian health care system.

The revised Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire: Exploring the factor structure in French-speaking patients with multimorbidity.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness (PPPC) questionnaire was revised, and there is a need for the questionnaire to be tested in diverse primary care populations. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the factor structure of the Revised PPPC questionnaire (PPPC-R) in French-speaking patients with multimorbidity. DESIGN: Secondary analysis from baseline data of the French arm of Patient-Centered Innovations for Persons with Multimorbidity Study (PACEinMM Study). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adult patients with multimorbidity attending primary health-care settings. OUTCOME MEASURES: Exploratory factor analyses were applied to examine the factor structure of the PPPC-R. Cronbach's alpha values were calculated to assess the internal consistency of the whole questionnaire and of each factor explored. RESULTS: There were 301 participants, mean age 61.0, 53.2% female. The PPPC-R showed very good internal consistency, with three factors: Patient-Centered Clinical Method (PCCM) Component 1-Exploring the health, disease and illness experience + PCCM Component 4-Enhancing the patient-clinician relationship (Factor 1); PCCM Component 2-Understanding the whole person (Factor 2); and PCCM Component 3-Finding common ground (Factor 3). There was a good internal consistency within each factor (Cronbach's α = 0.87 for 8 items in Factor 1, 0.77 for 5 items in Factor 2 and 0.87 for 5 items in Factor 3). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The French PPPC-R factor structure was in accordance with the underpinning conceptual model and presented with three factors. Further assessment of its validity and reproducibility are needed to allow its use as a measure of patient's perception of patient-centeredness.

Patients, caregivers and health-care professionals' experience with an interdisciplinary intervention for people with multimorbidity in primary care: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity challenges the health-care system and requires innovative approaches. In 2015, a 4-month patient-centred interdisciplinary pragmatic intervention was implemented in primary care with the aim of supporting self-management for patients with multimorbidity. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perceptions and experiences of health-care professionals, patients and their caregivers with a 4-month patient-centred interdisciplinary pragmatic intervention in primary care. DESIGN: A descriptive, qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A purposive sample of 30 participants was recruited from seven family medicine groups including patients, caregivers and health-care professionals (HCPs). Interviews were analysed using Thorne's interpretive description approach. RESULTS: Findings were grouped into the benefits and challenges of participating in the intervention. The programme allowed patients to adopt realistic and adapted objectives; to customize interventions to the patient's reality; and to help patients gain confidence, improve their knowledge, skills and motivation to manage their condition. Interprofessional collaboration eased the exchange of information via team meetings and electronic medical records. Challenges were related to collaboration, communication, coordination of work and integration of newly relocated HCPs mainly due to part-time assignments and staff turnover. HCPs part-time schedules limited their availability and hindered patients' follow-up. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This intervention was useful and rewarding from the HCPs, patients and caregivers' perspective. However, to ensure the success of this complex interdisciplinary intervention, implementers and managers should anticipate organizational barriers such as availability and time management of relocated HCPs.

Impact of an educational intervention combining clinical obesity preceptorship with electronic networking tools on primary care professionals: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers' (PCPs) attitude toward obesity is often negative, and their confidence level for helping patients manage their weight is low. Continuing professional development (CPD) on the subject of obesity is often based on a single activity using a traditional passive approach such as lectures known to have little effect on performance or patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an educational intervention for obesity management on PCPs' attitude, self-efficacy, practice changes and patient-related outcomes. METHODS: Prospective interventional study with 12 months follow-up. A two-day clinical obesity preceptorship was offered where participants were actively involved in competence building using real-life situations, in addition to electronic networking tools, including a discussion forum and interactive monthly webinars. Thirty-five participants (12 nurses and 23 physicians) from seven Family medicine groups were enrolled. Questionnaires were used to evaluate the impact on primary care nurses' and physicians' attitudes and self-efficacy for obesity management. Practice changes and patient outcomes were evaluated using clinical vignettes, de-identified electronic patient records and qualitative analyses from group interviews. RESULTS: Physicians' general attitude towards patients with obesity was improved (61 ± 22 mm vs 85 ± 17 mm, p <  0.001). Self-efficacy for obesity management and lifestyle counselling were also improved immediately and 1 year after the intervention (all Ps <  0.05). De-identified patient records and clinical vignettes both showed improvement in recording of weight, waist circumference and evaluation of readiness to change lifestyle (all Ps <  0.05) that was confirmed by group interviews. Also, 15% of patients who were prospectively registered for weight management had lost more than 5% of their initial weight at the time of their last visit (P <  0.0001, median follow-up of 152 days). CONCLUSION: A multimodal educational intervention for obesity management can improve PCPs'attitude and self-efficacy for obesity management and lifestyle counselling. This translates into beneficial practice changes and patient-related outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01385397 . Retrospectively registered, 28 June 2011.

Multimorbidity, polypharmacy and primary prevention in community-dwelling adults in Quebec: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy carries the risk of adverse events, especially in people with multimorbidity. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence of polypharmacy in community-dwelling adults, the association of multimorbidity with polypharmacy and the use of medications for primary prevention. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of the follow-up data from the Program of Research on the Evolution of a Cohort Investigating Health System Effects (PRECISE) in Quebec, Canada. Multimorbidity was defined as the presence of three or more chronic diseases and polypharmacy as self-reported concurrent use of five or more medications. Primary prevention was conceptualized as the use of statin or low-dose antiplatelets without a reported diagnostic of cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: Mean age 56.7 ± 11.6, 62.5% female, 30.3% had multimorbidity, 31.9% had polypharmacy (n = 971). The most common drugs used were statins, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and psychotropics. Compared to participants without any chronic disease, the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for having polypharmacy were 2.78 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23-6.28] in those with one chronic disease, 8.88 (95% CI: 4.06-19.20) in those with two chronic diseases and 25.31 (95% CI: 11.77-54.41) in those with three or more chronic diseases, P < 0.001. In participants without history of cardiovascular diseases, 16.2% were using antiplatelets and 28.5% were using statins. Multimorbidity was associated with increased likelihood of using antiplatelets (adjusted OR: 2.98, 95% CI: 1.98-4.48, P < 0.001) and statins (adjusted OR: 3.76, 95% CI: 2.63-5.37, P < 0.001) for primary prevention. CONCLUSION: There was a high prevalence of polypharmacy in community-dwelling adults in Quebec and a strong association with multimorbidity. The use of medications for primary prevention may contribute to polypharmacy and raise questions about safety.

A multidisciplinary self-management intervention among patients with multimorbidity and the impact of socioeconomic factors on results.

BACKGROUND: Limited studies exist on successful interventions for patients with multimorbidity. Even more limited is the knowledge on how socioeconomic factors have an impact on these interventions. The objective of this study was to analyze the effect of a multidisciplinary self-management intervention among patients with multimorbidity and the impact of socioeconomic factors on the results. METHODS: Secondary data analysis limited to multimorbid patients from of a pragmatic randomized trial evaluating an intervention that included patients (18 to 75 yrs.) from eight primary care practices in Quebec, Canada. The intervention included self-management support and patient-centred motivational approaches. Self-management was evaluated using the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ) which measures eight different domains. Changes in heiQ were analyzed following the three-month intervention with univariate and multivariate logistic regressions. RESULTS: Participants with three or more chronic conditions (n = 281), randomized to intervention or control groups, were included in this analysis. The effect of the intervention on the likelihood of an improvement in self-management was significant in six heiQ domains in the univariate analysis (Odd ratio; 95% CI): Health-directed behaviour (2.03; 1.16-3.55), Emotional well-being (1.97; 1.05-3.68), Self-monitoring and insight (2.35; 1.02-5.40), Constructive attitudes and approaches (2.91; 1.45-5.84), Skill and technique acquisition (1.96; 1.13-3.39), and Health services navigation (2.52; 1.21-5.21). After controlling for age and gender the results remained essentially the same. After additional adjustments for family income, education and self-perceived financial status, the likelihood of an improvement was no longer significant in the domains Emotional well-being and Self-monitoring and insight. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention produced significant improvements in multimorbid patients for most domains of self-management. Socioeconomic factors had a minor impact on the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01319656.

Integration of chronic disease prevention and management services into primary care (PR1MaC): findings from an embedded qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The PR1MaC study was conducted to evaluate the integration of Chronic Disease Prevention and Management services into primary care practices and was reported effective. The aim of this study was to further explore the effects of the PR1MaC intervention on patients and their family. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study embedded in a randomized controlled trial. The trial was implemented in eight primary health care practices in the Saguenay region, Quebec, Canada. The interdisciplinary patient-centred team-based intervention included self-management support and a motivational approach. We conducted focus groups and semi-directed individual interviews with patients, family members and healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Perceived positive effects can be grouped into six major themes: awareness, improved knowledge, improved motivation and empowerment, adoption of healthy behaviours, improvement of health status and improvement of quality of life. On the negative side, some participants reported lack of sustainability of newly acquired benefits in the months following the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating chronic disease prevention and management services into primary care settings had impacts on patients and their family members. These findings are consistent with findings that were reported in the quantitative study. Further studies should address longterm sustainabilility in terms of benefits for the patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no.: NCT01319656 .

Correction to: Methods for identifying 30 chronic conditions: application to administrative data.

Following publication of the original manuscript [1], the authors noted several errors in Table 1. Details of the requested corrections are shown below.

Chronic disease prevention and management programs in primary care: Realist synthesis of 6 programs in Quebec.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the mechanisms associated with success and failure of chronic disease prevention and management (CDPM) programs, as well as their key contexts. DESIGN: Realist synthesis. SETTING: Six primary care CDPM programs funded between 2011 and 2013 in Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: Patients, health providers, program leaders, and other stakeholders involved in CDPM programs. METHODS: A collaborative research process was implemented, involving representatives from the executive and advisory committees: researchers, health care providers, decision makers, and patients and families. Leaders were asked to provide all documents related to their programs to the research team. The documents were selected depending on their relevance and rigour. The thematic analysis of each program consisted of identifying the outcomes and mechanisms, as well as the specific contexts associated with these outcomes. Results for each program were validated by its leader before synthesizing the results of all programs together. MAIN FINDINGS: A total of 108 documents (eg, grant applications, scientific reports) were collected from the programs. Positive and negative outcomes were observed at the patient, health care provider, and health care system levels. Four main mechanism categories were associated with outcomes: patient-centred interdisciplinary care; self-management support and a motivational approach; professional support; and care coordination and relationships with partners. The main contextual factors that influenced the successes of these mechanisms were related to patients (multimorbidity, involvement of family caregivers), to health care providers (professional training, culture of interprofessional collaboration, mobilization of family physician), and to health care organizations (coordination between services, history of collaboration between partners, funding). CONCLUSION: This study confirms the essential role of patient-centred interdisciplinary care; self-management support and a motivational approach; professional support; and care coordination and relationships with partners when caring for patients with chronic diseases. It constitutes a relevant contribution for stakeholders involved in primary care transformation and should be used to inform the sustainability and scaling up of CDPM programs.

The "Patient-centered coordination by a care team" questionnaire achieves satisfactory validity and reliability.

Increasing prevalence of chronic conditions and multimorbidity challenges health care systems and calls for patient-centered coordination of care. Implementation and evaluation of health policies focusing on the development of patient-centered coordination of care needs valid instruments measuring this dimension of care. The aim of this validation study was to assess the psychometric properties of the French version of the 14-item Patient-Centered Coordination by a Care Team (PCCCT) questionnaire in a primary care setting. PCCCT provides a total score from 0 (worst coordination) to 42 (best coordination). 165 adult patients consulting in primary care with one or more chronic condition(s) completed questionnaires (including PCCCT) at recruitment. After three weeks, participants completed PCCCT again, either by mail (group A) or during a telephone interview (group B). At recruitment, the mean (SD) PCCCT score was 33.3 (7.7). Exploratory factor analysis revealed a 2-dimension structure, 8 items relating to patient involvement and 6 items relating to coordination (factors loadings ranging from 0.34 to 0.88). PCCCT score correlated significantly with subscales of Haggerty's continuity questionnaire, Spearman correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) ranging from 0.40 (0.22-0.57) to 0.52 (0.38-0.63). Internal consistency was excellent: Cronbach alpha 0.90 (0.79-0.92). Reliability was good, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.68 (0.55-0.78) for test-retest reliability (group A) and of 0.65 (0.46-0.79) for reliability between the self-administered and the interviewer-administered versions of the questionnaire (group B,). The PCCCT questionnaire presents satisfactory validity and reliability; it can be used for the evaluation of health organizations involving team work in primary care.

A Core Outcome Set for Multimorbidity Research (COSmm).

PURPOSE: We aimed to develop a consensus-based set of core outcomes specifically for studies in multimorbidity. METHODS: We undertook a consensus study following the COS-STAR (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting) guidelines for the design and reporting of core outcome sets. A Delphi panel of experts completed a web-based survey with 2 rounds. Panelists were presented with a range of outcomes that had been identified in previous workshops and a related systematic review. They indicated their level of agreement on whether each outcome should be included in the core set using a 5-point Likert scale, and outcomes reaching a prespecified consensus level were included. RESULTS: Of 30 individuals invited to be panelists, 26 from 13 countries agreed. All 26 completed both rounds of the survey. The Delphi panel reached consensus on 17 outcomes for inclusion in a core outcome set for multimorbidity (COSmm). The highest-ranked outcomes were health-related quality of life, mental health outcomes, and mortality. Other outcomes were grouped into overarching themes of patient-reported impacts and behaviors (treatment burden, self-rated health, self-management behavior, self-efficacy, adherence); physical activity and function (activities of daily living, physical function, physical activity); consultation related (communication, shared decision making, prioritization); and health systems (health care use, costs, quality of health care). CONCLUSIONS: This consensus study involved a wide range of international experts who identified a large number of outcomes for multimorbidity intervention studies. Our results suggest that quality of life, mental health outcomes, and mortality should be regarded as essential core outcomes. Researchers should, however, also consider the full range of outcomes when designing studies to capture important domains in multimorbidity depending on individual study aims and interventions.

Addressing the Evidence Gap in Stroke Rehabilitation for Complex Patients: A Preliminary Research Agenda.

Evidence suggests that a stroke occurs in isolation (no comorbid conditions) in less than 6% of patients. Multimorbidity, compounded by psychosocial issues, makes treatment and recovery for stroke increasingly complex. Recent research and health policy documents called for a better understanding of the needs of this patient population, and for the development and testing of models of care that meet their needs. A research agenda specific to complexity is required. The primary objective of the think tank was to identify and prioritize research questions that meet the information needs of stakeholders, and to develop a research agenda specific to stroke rehabilitation and patient complexity. A modified Delphi and World Café approach underpinned the think tank meeting, approaches well recognized to foster interaction, dialogue, and collaboration between stakeholders. Forty-three researchers, clinicians, and policymakers attended a 2-day meeting. Initial question-generating activities resulted in 120 potential research questions. Sixteen high-priority research questions were identified, focusing on predetermined complexity characteristics-multimorbidity, social determinants, patient characteristics, social supports, and system factors. The final questions are presented as a prioritized research framework. An emergent result of this activity is the development of a complexity and stroke rehabilitation research network. The research agenda reflects topics of importance to stakeholders working with stroke patients with increasingly complex care needs. This robust process resulted in a preliminary research agenda that could provide policymakers with the evidence needed to make improvements toward better-organized services, better coordination between settings, improved patient outcomes, and lower system costs.

Nursing Activities for Patients With Chronic Disease in Primary Care Settings: A Practice Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nurses in primary care organizations play a central role for patients with chronic disease. Lack of clarity in role description may be associated with underutilization of nurse competencies that could benefit the growing population of patients with chronic disease. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the research was to describe nursing activities in primary care settings with patients with chronic disease. METHODS: A Web-based survey was sent to nurses practicing in Family Medicine Groups in the Canadian Province of Québec. Participants rated the frequency with which they carried out nursing activities in five domains: (a) global assessment, (b) care and case management, (c) health promotion, (d) nurse-physician collaboration, and (e) planning services for patients with chronic disease. Findings were summarized with descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and ranges). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 266 of the 322 nurses who received the survey (82.6%). Activities in the health promotion and global assessment of the patient domains were carried out most frequently. Planning services for patients with chronic disease were least frequently performed. DISCUSSION: This study provides a broad description of nursing activities with patients with chronic disease in primary care. The findings provide a baseline for clinicians and researchers to document and improve nursing activities for optimal practice for patients with chronic disease.

Health literacy - engaging the community in the co-creation of meaningful health navigation services: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of patients encounter barriers to access and navigation in complex healthcare systems. They are unable to obtain information and services and to take appropriate action to improve their health. Low health literacy affects the ability of individuals to benefit from health services. Some social groups are disproportionately affected by low health literacy, including those with low educational attainment, Aboriginal people, and those on social assistance. These individuals face significant barriers in self-management of chronic diseases and in navigating the healthcare system. For these people, living in a context of deprivation contributes to maintaining disparities in access to healthcare and services. The objective of this study is to support knowledge co-construction and knowledge translation in primary care and services by involving underserved and Aboriginal people in research. METHODS: This study will integrate participatory health processes and action research to co-create, with patients, individuals, and community members impacted by health literacy, practical recommendations or solutions for facilitating navigation of the healthcare system by patients, individuals, and community members with less than optimal health literacy on how to best access health services. With this approach, academics and those for whom the research is intended will collaborate closely in all stages of the research to identify findings of immediate benefit to those impacted by health literacy and work together on knowledge translation. This study, carried out by researchers, community organizations and groups of people with low health literacy from three different regions of Quebec and Saskatchewan who can play an expert role in improving health services, will be conducted in three phases: 1) data collection; 2) data analysis and interpretation; and, 3) knowledge translation. DISCUSSION: Persons with low health literacy experience major obstacles in navigating the health system. This project will therefore contribute to addressing the gap between healthcare challenges and the needs of underserved patients with multi-morbidity and/or low health literacy who have complex health-related needs. It will pave the way for co-creating successful solutions for and with these communities that will increase their access to health services.