Cited by 1,125Chronic Disease Management StrategiesPrimary Care and Health OutcomesPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Prevalence, determinants and patterns of multimorbidity in primary care: a systematic review of observational studies

Open access
Violan, Concepció, Foguet-Boreu, Quintí, Flores-Mateo, Gemma, Salisbury, Chris, Blom, Jeanet, Freitag, Michael, Glynn, Liam, Muth, Christiane +1 more·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Multimorbidity is a major concern in primary care. Nevertheless, evidence of prevalence and patterns of multimorbidity, and their determinants, are scarce. The aim of this study is to systematically review studies of the prevalence, patterns and determinants of multimorbidity in primary care. METHODS: Systematic review of literature published between 1961 and 2013 and indexed in Ovid (CINAHL, PsychINFO, Medline and Embase) and Web of Knowledge. Studies were selected according to eligibility criteria of addressing prevalence, determinants, and patterns of multimorbidity and using a pretested proforma in primary care. The quality and risk of bias were assessed using STROBE criteria. Two researchers assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion (Kappa= 0.86). RESULTS: We identified 39 eligible publications describing studies that included a total of 70,057,611 patients in 12 countries. The number of health conditions analysed per study ranged from 5 to 335, with multimorbidity prevalence ranging from 12.9% to 95.1%. All studies observed a significant positive association between multimorbidity and age (odds ratio [OR], 1.26 to 227.46), and lower socioeconomic status (OR, 1.20 to 1.91). Positive associations with female gender and mental disorders were also observed. The most frequent patterns of multimorbidity included osteoarthritis together with cardiovascular and/or metabolic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Well-established determinants of multimorbidity include age, lower socioeconomic status and gender. The most prevalent conditions shape the patterns of multimorbidity. However, the limitations of the current evidence base means that further and better designed studies are needed to inform policy, research and clinical practice, with the goal of improving health-related quality of life for patients with multimorbidity. Standardization of the definition and assessment of multimorbidity is essential in order to better understand this phenomenon, and is a necessary immediate step.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0102149

Cites

59 of 59 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Violan, C., Foguet-Boreu, Q., Flores-Mateo, G., Salisbury, C., Blom, J., Freitag, M., Glynn, L., Muth, C., & Valderas, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
  • Jena University Hospital (DE)
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
  • Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Salisbury, Chris
  • Blom, Jeanet
  • Freitag, Michael
  • Glynn, Liam
  • Muth, Christiane
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-07-21
Volume
9
Issue
7
Pages
e102149
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080696239
Cited by
1,125
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 137 · 2022: 151 · 2021: 163 · 2020: 116 · 2019: 102 · 2018: 72 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 3
FWCI
5.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (acceptedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Publication Server of Goethe University Frankfurt am Main (Goethe University Frankfurt) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Limerick Institutional Repository (University of Limerick) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR/CS/010/024)
  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
multimorbidity, prevalence, primary care, socioeconomic status, age, gender differences, mental illness, osteoarthritis, cardiovascular conditions, metabolic disorders
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Female, Humans, Male, Primary Health Care, Quality of Life, Sex Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Comorbidity, Prevalence, Observational Studies as Topic

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