Cited by 178Chronic Disease Management StrategiesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealthcare Policy and Management

A Systematic Review of Cost-of-Illness Studies of Multimorbidity

Open access
Wang, Lili, Si, Lei, Cocker, Fiona, Palmer, Andrew J., Sanderson, Kristy·2018·Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Abstract

Objectives The economic burden of multimorbidity is considerable. This review analyzed the methods of cost-of-illness (COI) studies and summarized the economic outcomes of multimorbidity.Methods A systematic review (2000-2016) was performed, which was registered with Prospero, reported according to PRISMA, and used a quality checklist adapted for COI studies. The inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed COI studies on multimorbidity, whereas the exclusion criterion was studies focusing on an index disease. Extracted data included the definition, measure, and prevalence of multimorbidity; the number of included health conditions; the age of study population; the variables used in the COI methodology; the percentage of multimorbidity vs. total costs; and the average costs per capita.Results Among the 26 included articles, 14 defined multimorbidity as a simple count of 2 or more conditions. Methodologies used to derive the costs were markedly different. Given different healthcare systems, OOP payments of multimorbidity varied across countries. In the 17 and 12 studies with cut-offs of ≥2 and ≥3 conditions, respectively, the ratios of multimorbidity to non-multimorbidity costs ranged from 2-16 to 2-10. Among the ten studies that provided cost breakdowns, studies with and without a societal perspective attributed the largest percentage of multimorbidity costs to social care and inpatient care/medicine, respectively.Conclusion Multimorbidity was associated with considerable economic burden. Synthesising the cost of multimorbidity was challenging due to multiple definitions of multimorbidity and heterogeneity in COI methods. Count method was most popular to define multimorbidity. There is consistent evidence that multimorbidity was associated with higher costs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40258-017-0346-6

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. van den Akker M, Buntin x F, Knottnerus JA. Co morb idity or mu ltimo rbid ity: what's in a name? A rev iew of literature. The European journal o f general p ractice. 1996;2(2):65-70.
  2. Mercer S, Salisbury C, Fortin M. ABC o f Mult imorbid ity. John Wiley & Sons; 2014.
  3. Schoenberg NE, Kim H, Ed wards W, Fleming ST. Burden of co mmon mult iple -mo rbid ity constellations on out- of-pocket medical expenditures among older adults. The Gerontologist. 2007; 47(4):423-37.
  4. Jo C. Cost-of-illness studies: concepts, scopes, and methods. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2014; 20(4):327-37.
  5. Byford S, Torgerson DJ, Raftery J. Cost of illness studies. British Medical Journal. 2000;320:1335-.
  6. Weinstein M, Siegel J, Go ld M, Kamlet M, Russell L. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New Yo rk: Oxford Un iversity. 1996;55.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, L., Si, L., Cocker, F., Palmer, A. J., & Sanderson, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Tasmania (AU)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
Corresponding author
Sanderson, Kristy
Venue
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Published
2017-08-30
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
15-29
ISSN
  • 1175-5652 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-1896
OpenAlex
W2750674138
Cited by
178
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 3
FWCI
1.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Health Economics and Health Policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (acceptedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
  • UTAS Research Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
multimorbidity, economic burden, out-of-pocket costs, cost breakdown, social care costs, hospital costs, societal perspective, health care costs
MeSH terms
Multimorbidity, Health Services Research, Humans, Cost of Illness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review