Performance of quantitative measures of multimorbidity: a population-based retrospective analysis

• Main Authors: Emili Vela (Author), Montse Clèries (Author), David Monterde (Author), Gerard Carot-Sans (Author), Marc Coca (Author), Damià Valero-Bover (Author), Jordi Piera-Jiménez (Author), Luís García Eroles (Author), Pol Pérez Sust (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: BMC, 2021-10-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 10.1186/s12889-021-11922-2; 1471-2458
• Keywords: Multimorbidity; Chronic disease; Risk assessment; Health resources; Health planning; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: BMC Public Health, Vol 21, Iss 1, Pp 1-9 (2021)

Abstract Background Multimorbidity measures are useful for resource planning, patient selection and prioritization, and factor adjustment in clinical practice, research, and benchmarking. We aimed to compare the explanatory performance of the adjusted morbidity group (GMA) index in predicting relevant healthcare outcomes with that of other quantitative measures of multimorbidity. Methods The performance of multimorbidity measures was retrospectively assessed on anonymized records of the entire adult population of Catalonia (North-East Spain). Five quantitative measures of multimorbidity were added to a baseline model based on age, gender, and socioeconomic status: the Charlson index score, the count of chronic diseases according to three different proposals (i.e., the QOF, HCUP, and Karolinska institute), and the multimorbidity index score of the GMA tool. Outcomes included all-cause death, total and non-scheduled hospitalization, primary care and ER visits, medication use, admission to a skilled nursing facility for intermediate care, and high expenditure (time frame 2017). The analysis was performed on 10 subpopulations: all adults (i.e., aged > 17 years), people aged > 64 years, people aged > 64 years and institutionalized in a nursing home for long-term care, and people with specific diagnoses (e.g., ischemic heart disease, cirrhosis, dementia, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). The explanatory performance was assessed using the area under the receiving operating curves (AUC-ROC) (main analysis) and three additional statistics (secondary analysis). Results The adult population included 6,224,316 individuals. The addition of any of the multimorbidity measures to the baseline model increased the explanatory performance for all outcomes and subpopulations. All measurements performed better in the general adult population. The GMA index had higher performance and consistency across subpopulations than the rest of multimorbidity measures. The Charlson index stood out on explaining mortality, whereas measures based on exhaustive definitions of chronic diagnostic (e.g., HCUP and GMA) performed better than those using predefined lists of diagnostics (e.g., QOF or the Karolinska proposal). Conclusions The addition of multimorbidity measures to models for explaining healthcare outcomes increase the performance. The GMA index has high performance in explaining relevant healthcare outcomes and may be useful for clinical practice, resource planning, and public health research.