| Title |
Quality of Care for Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions: The Role of Comorbidity Interrelatedness
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-013-2616-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donna M. Zulman, Steven M. Asch, Susana B. Martins, Eve A. Kerr, Brian B. Hoffman, Mary K. Goldstein |
| Abstract |
Multimorbidity--the presence of multiple chronic conditions in a patient--has a profound impact on health, health care utilization, and associated costs. Definitions of multimorbidity in clinical care and research have evolved over time, initially focusing on a patient's number of comorbidities and the associated magnitude of required care processes, and later recognizing the potential influence of comorbidity characteristics on patient care and outcomes. In this article, we review the relationship between multimorbidity and quality of care, and discuss how this relationship may be mediated by the degree to which conditions interact with one another to generate clinical complexity (comorbidity interrelatedness). Drawing on established theoretical frameworks from cognitive engineering and biomedical informatics, we describe how interactions among conditions result in clinical complexity and may affect quality of care. We discuss how this comorbidity interrelatedness influences the value of existing quality guidelines and performance metrics, and describe opportunities to quantify this construct using data widely available through electronic health records. Incorporating comorbidity interrelatedness into conceptualizations of multimorbidity has the potential to enhance clinical and research efforts that aim to improve care for patients with multiple chronic conditions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 20% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 70% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 216 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 37 | 17% |
| Researcher | 35 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 13% |
| Other | 15 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 50 | 22% |
| Unknown | 41 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 78 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 41 | 18% |
| Unknown | 58 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2020.
All research outputs
#3,402,146
of 24,593,959 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2,415
of 7,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,332
of 212,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#23
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,593,959 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,984 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 212,973 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.