Living with multimorbidity? The lived experience of multiple chronic conditions in later life

Multimorbidity is defined biomedically as the co-existence of two or more long-term conditions in an individual. Globally, the number of people living with multiple conditions is increasing, posing stark challenges both to the clinical management of patients and the organisation of health systems. Qualitative literature has begun to address how concurrency affects the self-management of chronic conditions, and the concept of illness prioritisation predominates. In this article, we adopt a phenomenological lens to show how older people with multiple conditions experience illness. This UK study was qualitative and longitudinal in design. Sampling was purposive and drew upon an existing cohort study. In total, 15 older people living with multiple conditions took part in 27 in-depth interviews. The practical stages of analysis were guided by Constructivist Grounded Theory. We argue that the concept of multimorbidity as biomedically imagined has limited relevance to lived experience, while concurrency may also be erroneous. In response, we outline a lived experience of multiple chronic conditions in later life, which highlights differences between clinical and lay assumptions and makes the latter visible

The Keele community knee pain forum: action research to engage with stakeholders about the prevention of knee pain and disability

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Involvement of users in health care research is central to UK health care policy, and guidelines for involvement exist. However, there are limited examples in rheumatology research. The aim of this study was to establish a community knee pain forum aimed at engaging stakeholders in design, dissemination and prioritisation of knee pain research.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Ten people were recruited to the forum representing a wide range of agencies. These included Weight Watchers, the leisure industry, Beth Johnson Foundation, health and social care professionals and the public. Three two-hour meetings over a two-year period were held. Experienced qualitative researchers facilitated each meeting. Written feedback after each meeting was elicited, and a short evaluation form was mailed to all members after the final meeting.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Establishing and maintaining a forum of mixed members required careful preparation and ongoing support. Meetings had to be well-structured in order to allow for balanced participation of lay and professional users. Users contributed to the design of methods, provided ideas for dissemination and set priorities for further research. Clear documentation of meetings ensured that users' contributions to the research cycle were transparent.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our knee pain forum illustrates that community engagement can have a positive impact on the development, dissemination and implementation of health research. Engaging with non-academic partners enables mutual learning and this enhances the quality of NHS research.</p

Rethinking 'risk' and self-management for chronic illness

Self-management for chronic illness is a current high profile UK healthcare policy. Policy and clinical recommendations relating to chronic illnesses are framed within a language of lifestyle risk management. This article argues the enactment of risk within current UK self-management policy is intimately related to neo-liberal ideology and is geared towards population governance. The approach that dominates policy perspectives to ‘risk' management is critiqued for positioning people as rational subjects who calculate risk probabilities and act upon them. Furthermore this perspective fails to understand the lay person's construction and enactment of risk, their agenda and contextual needs when living with chronic illness. Of everyday relevance to lay people is the management of risk and uncertainty relating to social roles and obligations, the emotions involved when encountering the risk and uncertainty in chronic illness, and the challenges posed by social structural factors and social environments that have to be managed. Thus, clinical enactments of self-management policy would benefit from taking a more holistic view to patient need and seek to avoid solely communicating lifestyle risk factors to be self-managed