↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence of self-reported multimorbidity in the general population and in primary care practices: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prevalence of self-reported multimorbidity in the general population and in primary care practices: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Research Notes, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2121-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nadjib-Mohamed Mokraoui, Jeannie Haggerty, José Almirall, Martin Fortin

Abstract

Settings affect estimation of multimorbidity prevalence. Multimorbidity prevalence was reported to be substantially higher among family practice-based patients than in the general population, but prevalence estimates were obtained with different methods and at different time periods. The aim of the present study was to compare estimates of the prevalence of multimorbidity in the general population and in primary care clinical practices, both measured simultaneously and with the same methods. Cross-sectional analysis of results from the Program of Research on the Evolution of a Cohort Investigating Health System Effects (PRECISE) in Quebec, Canada. Subjects aged between 25 and 75 years. A randomly-selected cohort in the general population recruited by telephone, and patients recruited in the waiting room of 12 primary care clinics. Prevalence of multimorbidity was estimated using three operational definitions of multimorbidity: (a) two or more chronic conditions (MM 2+); (b) three or more chronic conditions (MM 3+); and (c) disease burden morbidity assessment score of 10 or higher (DBMA 10+). Prevalence in the general population ranged from 59.4 % (with MM2+) to 16.9 %, (with DBMA10+). In primary care practices, prevalence estimates ranged from 69.5 to 29.5 %. Prevalence estimates of multimorbidity were about 10 % higher in primary care clinical practices than in the sample from the general population. The difference was not importantly affected by the use of different operational definitions of multimorbidity. Also, there was a higher burden of disease among patients attending primary care clinics. The study suggests that the problem of multimorbidity in the two settings is different both quantitatively (a higher proportion of patients with multimorbidity in primary care clinical practices), and qualitatively (a higher disease burden of patients attending primary care clinics). For decision-makers interested in resource allocation, prevalence estimates in samples from primary care practices are more informative than estimates in the general population, but burden of disease should also be considered as it results in more complexity in primary care clinical practices.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Psychology 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 11 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 June 2016.
All research outputs
#1,362,933
of 7,936,934 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#290
of 1,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,010
of 263,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#21
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,936,934 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,943 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 263,469 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 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 71% of its contemporaries.