Objective is to explore how multimorbidity is defined in the scientific literature, with a focus on the roles of diseases, risk factors, and symptoms in the definitions. Design: Systematic review. Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for relevant publications up until October 2013. One author extracted the information. Ambiguities were resolved, and consensus reached with one co-author. Outcome measures were: cut-off point for the number of conditions included in the definitions of multimorbidity; setting; data sources; number, kind, duration, and severity of diagnoses, risk factors, and symptoms. We reviewed 163 articles. In 61 articles (37%), the cut-off point for multimorbidity was two or more conditions (diseases, risk factors, or symptoms). The most frequently used setting was the general population (68 articles, 42%), and primary care (41 articles, 25%). Sources of data were primarily self-reports (56 articles, 42%). Out of the 163 articles selected, 115 had individually constructed multimorbidity definitions, and in these articles diseases occurred in all definitions, with diabetes as the most frequent. Risk factors occurred in 98 (85%) and symptoms in 71 (62%) of the definitions. The severity of conditions was used in 26 (23%) of the definitions, but in different ways. The definition of multimorbidity is heterogeneous and risk factors are more often included than symptoms. The severity of conditions is seldom included. Since the number of people living with multimorbidity is increasing there is a need to develop a concept of multimorbidity that is more useful in daily clinical work. Key pointsThe increasing number of multimorbidity patients challenges the healthcare system. The concept of multimorbidity needs further discussion in order to be implemented in daily clinical practice.Many definitions of multimorbidity exist and most often a cut-off point of two or more is applied to a range of 4–147 different conditions.Diseases are included in all definitions of multimorbidity.Risk factors are often included in existing definitions, whereas symptoms and the severity of the conditions are less frequently included.

Objective. To explore views and attitudes among general practitioners (GPs) and researchers in the field of general practice towards problems and challenges related to treatment of patients with multimorbidity. Setting. A workshop entitled Patients with multimorbidity in general practice held during the Nordic Congress of General Practice in Tampere, Finland, 2013. Subjects. A total of 180 GPs and researchers. Design. Data for this summary report originate from audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim plenary discussions as well as 76 short questionnaires answered by attendees during the workshop. The data were analysed using framework analysis. Results. (i) Complex care pathways and clinical guidelines developed for single diseases were identified as very challenging when handling patients with multimorbidity; (ii) insufficient cooperation between the professionals involved in the care of multimorbid patients underlined the GPs’ impression of a fragmented health care system; (iii) GPs found it challenging to establish a good dialogue and prioritize problems with patients within the timeframe of a normal consultation; (iv) the future role of the GP was discussed in relation to diminishing health inequality, and current payment systems were criticized for not matching the treatment patterns of patients with multimorbidity. Conclusion. The participants supported the development of a future research strategy to improve the treatment of patients with multimorbidity. Four main areas were identified, which need to be investigated further to improve care for this steadily growing patient group.

Background:Knowledge about prevalent and deadly combinations of multimorbidity is needed.Objective:To determine the nationwide prevalence of multimorbidity and estimate mortality for the most prevalent combinations of one to five diagnosis groups. Furthermore, to assess the excess mortality of the combination of two groups compared to the product of mortality associated with the single groups.Design:A prospective cohort study using Danish registries and including 3.986.209 people aged ≥18 years on 1 January, 2000. Multimorbidity was defined as having diagnoses from at least 2 of 10 diagnosis groups: lung, musculoskeletal, endocrine, mental, cancer, neurological, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, kidney, and sensory organs. Logistic regression (odds ratios, ORs) and ratio of ORs (ROR) were used to study mortality and excess mortality.Results:Prevalence of multimorbidity was 7.1% in the Danish population. The most prevalent combination was the musculoskeletal–cardiovascular (0.4%), which had double the mortality (OR, 2.03) compared to persons not belonging to any of the diagnosis groups but showed no excess mortality (ROR, 0.97). The neurological–cancer combination had the highest mortality (OR, 6.35), was less prevalent (0.07%), and had no excess mortality (ROR, 0.94). Cardiovascular–lung was moderately prevalent (0.2%), had high mortality (OR, 5.75), and had excess mortality (ROR, 1.18). Endocrine–kidney had high excess mortality (ROR, 1.81) and cancer–mental had low excess mortality (ROR, 0.66). Mortality increased with the number of groups.Conclusions:All combinations had increased mortality risk with some of them having up to a six-fold increased risk. Mortality increased with the number of diagnosis groups. Most combinations did not increase mortality above that expected, that is, were additive rather than synergistic.

Objective: This article explores experiences of people with multimorbidity, and attempts to advance understandings of the complexity of living with multimorbidity outside the medical encounter in a social identity theoretical framework. Method: This is a qualitative study using individual semi-structured interviews among nine persons living with multimorbidity. The interviews are analysed inductively according to thematic content analysis. Results: The emerging themes are: 1) Impact on daily life, 2) Professional life and 3) Capacity for handling multimorbidity. People with multimorbidity experience physical limitations and psychological distress, which limits their ability to maintain social relations and affiliation to the labour market. Accordingly, they are challenged in their ability to retain a sense of normal everyday life, which is mediated by their capacity for handling multimorbidity. Discussion: Multimorbidity may compromise various social identities. The complexity of living with multimorbidity is increased by an aspiration to maintain valued social identities in order to preserve a coherent sense of self and a normal everyday life. This study suggests an increased focus on individual priorities and values outside the medical encounter, and argues in favour of recognizing the conflicts that people experience as they try to balance multimorbidity with other important aspects of their daily lives.