Systematic review on the instruments used for measuring the association of the level of multimorbidity and clinically important outcomes

Objectives There are multiple instruments for measuring multimorbidity. The main objective of this systematic review was to provide a list of instruments that are suitable for use in studies aiming to measure the association of a specific outcome with different levels of multimorbidity as the main independent variable in community-dwelling individuals. The secondary objective was to provide details of the requirements, strengths and limitations of these instruments, and the chosen outcomes. Methods We conducted the review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018105297). We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL electronic databases published in English and manually searched the Journal of Comorbidity between 1 January 2010 and 23 October 2020 inclusive. Studies also had to select adult patients from primary care or general population and had at least one specified outcome variable. Two authors screened the titles, abstracts and full texts independently. Disagreements were resolved with a third author. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment. Results Ninety-six studies were identified, with 69 of them rated to have a low risk of bias. In total, 33 unique instruments were described. Disease Count and weighted indices like Charlson Comorbidity Index were commonly used. Other approaches included pharmaceutical-based instruments. Disease Count was the common instrument used for measuring all three essential core outcomes of multimorbidity research: Mortality, mental health and quality of life. There was a rise in the development of novel weighted indices by using prognostic models. The data obtained for measuring multimorbidity were from sources including medical records, patient self-reports and large administrative databases. Conclusions We listed the details of 33 instruments for measuring the level of multimorbidity as a resource for investigators interested in the measurement of multimorbidity for its association with or prediction of a specific outcome. © 2021 Author(s). Published by BMJ

Trust and Uncertainty in the Implementation of a Pilot Remote Blood Pressure Monitoring Program in Primary Care: Qualitative Study of Patient and Health Care Professional Views

BackgroundTrust is of fundamental importance to the adoption of technologies in health care. The increasing use of telemedicine worldwide makes it important to consider user views and experiences. In particular, we ask how the mediation of a technological platform alters the trust relationship between patient and health care provider. ObjectiveTo date, few qualitative studies have focused on trust in the use of remote health care technologies. This study examined the perspectives of patients and clinical staff who participated in a remote blood pressure monitoring program, focusing on their experiences of trust and uncertainty in the use of technology and how this telehealth intervention may have affected the patient-provider relationship. MethodsA secondary qualitative analysis using inductive thematic analysis was conducted on interview data from 13 patients and 8 staff members who participated in a remote blood pressure monitoring program to elicit themes related to trust. ResultsIn total, 4 themes were elicited that showed increased trust (patients felt reassured, patients trusted the telehealth program, staff felt that the data were trustworthy, and a better patient-provider partnership based on the mutually trusted data), and 4 themes were elicited that reflected decreased trust (patients’ distrust of technology, clinicians’ concerns about the limitations of technologically mediated interactions, experiences of uncertainty, and institutional risk). ConclusionsManaging trust relationships plays an important role in the successful implementation of telemedicine. Ensuring that trust building is incorporated in the design of telehealth interventions can contribute to improved effectiveness and quality of care

Systematic review on the instruments used for measuring the association of the level of multimorbidity and clinically important outcomes

Objectives There are multiple instruments for measuring multimorbidity. The main objective of this systematic review was to provide a list of instruments that are suitable for use in studies aiming to measure the association of a specific outcome with different levels of multimorbidity as the main independent variable in community-dwelling individuals. The secondary objective was to provide details of the requirements, strengths and limitations of these instruments, and the chosen outcomes.Methods We conducted the review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018105297). We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL electronic databases published in English and manually searched the Journal of Comorbidity between 1 January 2010 and 23 October 2020 inclusive. Studies also had to select adult patients from primary care or general population and had at least one specified outcome variable. Two authors screened the titles, abstracts and full texts independently. Disagreements were resolved with a third author. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment.Results Ninety-six studies were identified, with 69 of them rated to have a low risk of bias. In total, 33 unique instruments were described. Disease Count and weighted indices like Charlson Comorbidity Index were commonly used. Other approaches included pharmaceutical-based instruments. Disease Count was the common instrument used for measuring all three essential core outcomes of multimorbidity research: mortality, mental health and quality of life. There was a rise in the development of novel weighted indices by using prognostic models. The data obtained for measuring multimorbidity were from sources including medical records, patient self-reports and large administrative databases.Conclusions We listed the details of 33 instruments for measuring the level of multimorbidity as a resource for investigators interested in the measurement of multimorbidity for its association with or prediction of a specific outcome

Patients’ experiences of telemedicine for their skin problems : qualitative study

Background: Teledermatology is a cost-effective treatment modality for the management of skin disorders. Most evaluations use quantitative data, and far less is understood about the patients’ experience. Objective: This qualitative study aimed to explore patients’ perceptions of a teledermatology service linking public primary care clinics to the national specialist dermatology clinic in Singapore. A better understanding of patients’ experiences can help refine and develop the care provided. Methods: Semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted with patients who had been referred to the teledermatology service. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed before undergoing thematic content analysis. Results: A total of 21 patients aged between 22 and 72 years were recruited. The following 3 themes were identified from the data of patients’ experiences: positive perceptions of teledermatology, concerns about teledermatology, and ideas for improving the teledermatology service. The patients found the teledermatology service convenient, saving them time and expense and liberating them from the stresses incurred when making an in-person visit to a specialist facility. They valued the confidence and reassurance they gained from having a dermatologist involved in deciding their management. The patients’ concern included data security and the quality of the images shared. Nonetheless, they were keen to see the service expanded beyond the polyclinics. Their experiences and perceptions will inform future service refinement and development. Conclusions: This narrative exploration of users’ experiences of teledermatology produced rich data enabling a better understanding of the patients’ journey, the way they understand and interpret their experiences, and ideas for service refinement. Telemedicine reduces traveling and enables safe distancing, factors that are much needed during pandemics.Nanyang Technological UniversityPublished versionWe would like to thank the staff at the polyclinics and specialist center who helped us with the recruitment of patients. This study was funded by a research grant (CPHCRI1.1#001) under the Centre for Primary Health Care Research and Innovation, a partnership between the Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, and the National Healthcare Group Singapore