This review highlights the paucity of research into interventions to improve outcomes for multimorbidity with the focus to date being on co-morbid conditions or multimorbidity in older patients. The limited results suggest that interventions to date have had mixed effects but have shown a tendency to improve prescribing and medication adherence, particularly if interventions can be targeted at risk factors or specific functional difficulties in people with co-morbid conditions or multimorbidity. There is a need for clear definitions of participants, consideration of appropriate outcomes, and further pragmatic studies based in primary care settings.

Objective To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.Design Systematic review.Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CAB Health, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness, and the Cochrane EPOC (effective practice and organisation of care) register (searches updated in April 2011).Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses reporting on 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. Outcomes included any validated measure of physical or mental health and psychosocial status, including quality of life outcomes, wellbeing, and measures of disability or functional status. Also included were measures of patient and provider behaviour, including drug adherence, utilisation of health services, acceptability of services, and costs.Data selection Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed study quality. As meta-analysis of results was not possible owing to heterogeneity in participants and interventions, a narrative synthesis of the results from the included studies was carried out.Results 10 studies examining a range of complex interventions totalling 3407 patients with multimorbidity were identified. All were randomised controlled trials with a low risk of bias. Two studies described interventions for patients with specific comorbidities. The remaining eight studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older patients. Consideration of the impact of socioeconomic deprivation was minimal. All studies involved complex interventions with multiple components. In six of the 10 studies the predominant component was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In the remaining four studies, intervention components were predominantly patient oriented. Overall the results were mixed, with a trend towards improved prescribing and drug adherence. The results indicated that it is difficult to improve outcomes in this population but that interventions focusing on particular risk factors in comorbid conditions or functional difficulties in multimorbidity may be more effective. No economic analyses were included, although the improvements in prescribing and risk factor management in some studies could provide potentially important cost savings.Conclusions Evidence on the care of patients with multimorbidity is limited, despite the prevalence of multimorbidity and its impact on patients and healthcare systems. Interventions to date have had mixed effects, although are likely to be more effective if targeted at risk factors or specific functional difficulties. A need exists to clearly identify patients wit...

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, or specific functional difficulties in people with multimorbidity.

Multimorbidity is defined as the occurrence of two or more chronic diseases in one individual. Patients with multimorbidity generally have poorer health and functioning and higher rates of attendance in primary care and specialty settings. AimTo explore the views and attitudes of GPs and pharmacists managing patients with multimorbidity in primary care. Design of studyQualitative study using focus groups. SettingPrimary care in Ireland. MethodThree focus groups were held in total, involving 13 GPs and seven pharmacists. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using the 'framework' approach. ResultsThe predominant themes to emerge from the focus groups were: 1) the concept of multimorbidity and the link to polypharmacy and ageing; 2) health systems issues relating to lack to time, inter-professional communication difficulties, and fragmentation of care; 3) individual issues from clinicians relating to professional roles, clinical uncertainty, and avoidance; 4) patient issues; and 5) potential management solutions. ConclusionThis study provides information on the significant impact of multimorbidity from a professional perspective. It highlights potential elements of an intervention that could be designed and tested to achieve improvements in the management of multimorbidity, outcomes for individuals affected, and the experiences of those providing healthcare.

Objective To test the effectiveness of peer support for patients with type 2 diabetes. Design Cluster randomised controlled. Setting 20 general practices in the east of the Republic of Ireland. Participants 395 patients (192 in intervention group, 203 in control group) and 29 peer supporters with type 2 diabetes. Intervention All practices introduced a standardised diabetes care system. The peer support intervention ran over a two year period and contained four elements: the recruitment and training of peer supporters, nine group meetings led by peer supporters in participant's own general practice, and a retention plan for the peer supporters. Main outcome measures HbA 1c ; cholesterol concentration; systolic blood pressure; and wellbeing score. Results There was no difference between intervention and control patients at baseline. All practices and 85% (337) of patients were followed up. At two year follow-up, there were no significant differences in HbA 1c (mean difference −0.08%, 95% confidence interval −0.35% to 0.18%), systolic blood pressure (−3.9 mm Hg, −8.9 to 1.1 mm Hg), total cholesterol concentration (−0.03 mmol/L, −0.28 to 0.22 mmol/L), or wellbeing scores (−0.7, −2.3 to 0.8).While there was a trend towards decreases in the proportion of patients with poorly controlled risk factors at follow-up, particularly for systolic blood pressure (52% (87/166) >130 mm Hg in intervention v 61% (103/169) >130 mm Hg in control), these changes were not significant. The process evaluation indicated that the intervention was generally delivered as intended, though 18% (35) of patients in the intervention group never attended any group meetings. Conclusions A group based peer support intervention is feasible in general practice settings, but the intervention was not effective when targeted at all patients with type 2 diabetes. While there was a trend towards improvements of clinical outcomes, the results do not support the widespread adoption of peer support. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42541690.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives To determine exposure to violence by a partner or spouse among women attending general practice and its association with respondents' demographic and personal characteristics; frequency of inquiry about violence by general practitioners; and women's views on routine questioning about domestic violence by general practitioners. Design Cross sectional, self administered, anonymous survey. Setting 22 volunteer Irish general practices. Participants 1871 women attending general practice. Main outcome measures Proportion who had experienced domestic violence, severity of such violence, and context in which violence occurred. Results Of the 1692 women who had ever had a sexual relationship, 651 (39%, 95% confidence interval 36% to 41%) had experienced violent behaviour by a partner. 78/651 (12%) women reported that their doctor had asked about domestic violence. 298/651 (46%, 42% to 50%) women had been injured, 60 (20%) of whom reported that their doctor had asked about domestic violence. 1304/1692 (77%, 77% to 80%) were in favour of routine inquiry about domestic violence by their usual general practitioner. 1170 women (69%) reported controlling behaviour by their partner and 475 (28%) reported feeling afraid of their previous or current partner. Women who reported domestic violence were 32 times more likely to be afraid of their partner than women who did not report such violence. Conclusions Almost two fifths of women had experienced domestic violence but few recalled being asked about it. Most women favoured routine questioning by their practitioner about such violence. Asking women about fear of their partner and controlling behaviour may be a useful way of identifying those who have experienced domestic violence.