Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editorials

‘Multimorbidity’: an acceptable term for patients or time for a rebrand?

Carolyn Chew-Graham, Liam O’Toole, Jane Taylor and Chris Salisbury
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (685): 372-373. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X704681
Carolyn Chew-Graham
Research Institute, Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele.
Roles: NHS Manchester, Professor of General Practice Research
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Liam O’Toole
CEO of Versus Arthritis and Chairman of the Taskforce on Multiple Long-Term Conditions, London.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jane Taylor
Taskforce on Multiple Long-Term Conditions; Chair of the Patient Insight Group at Versus Arthritis and a member of NIHR INVOLVE advisory group, London.
Roles: Expert by Experience
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chris Salisbury
Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Roles: Professor of Primary Health Care
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

DEFINITIONS AND MEANINGS

The simultaneous presence of multiple pathological conditions is the norm.1 The construct of comorbidity was defined by Feinstein as: ‘any distinct additional entity that has existed or may occur during the clinical course of a patient who has the index disease under study’.2,3 Multimorbidity refers to the co-occurrence of multiple chronic conditions in an individual,4,5 or the presence of two or more long-term conditions.6

Evidence suggests that people with multimorbidity report worse experiences in primary care.7 Muth et al describe the Ariadne principles, which might support clinicians in managing patients with multimorbidity, and include: ‘assessing potential interactions’, ‘eliciting patient preferences and priorities’, and ‘individualised patient management’. 8

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for multimorbidity 6 emphasises the need to take a person-centred, holistic approach to patient care, and provides guidance about key principles to consider when managing patients with multimorbidity. The guideline attempts to shift the emphasis from single-disease guidelines, and care delivered in silos, to encouraging clinicians to work with patients with multiple conditions to clarify what is important to them, including their personal goals, values, and priorities. The results of these discussions can help frame a discussion about current treatments and their value to the person.6 Mair and Gallacher9 emphasise the need to explore what matters most to people with multiple conditions, and to their caregivers, and to support clinicians to enable them to respond more effectively to the complex care challenges posed by people with multiple conditions.

NEGATIVE PERCEPTIONS

A Taskforce on Multiple Conditions, a cross-sector partnership led by The Richmond Group of Charities, Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity, and the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) (https://richmondgroupofcharities.org.uk/taskforce-multiple-conditions), was established in 2018, with the aim that people with multiple long-term health problems live as well as possible, for as long as possible.

The Taskforce has published results of an ethnographic study: ‘Just one thing after another’ — living with multiple conditions,10 which illustrates the challenges faced by people with multiple conditions, giving an often unheard voice to this important discussion. One of the findings reported was the reflection by participants that ‘multimorbidity’ was not a useful or acceptable term. Research conducted by Ipsos MORI, on behalf of Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity, has explored the framing of ‘multimorbidity’ and identified that those living with multiple conditions felt that medical language, including the term ‘multimorbidity’, could feel negative and discouraging. The complexities of living with multiple conditions were not thought to be addressed through the term ‘multimorbidity’, which was felt to suggest a single disease, reinforcing a biomedical model. The Taskforce has suggested that shared language is needed to describe the complexities across the whole system, ensuring that people are seen ‘in the round’, with care responding to an individual’s wider needs.

At a recent conference focusing on mental–physical multimorbidity,11 conference participants were asked to contribute to a discussion about the use of the term ‘multimorbidity’. One participant asked, ‘why do we need a label?’, and a further participant commented, ‘morbidity sounds serious, like fatality’; reinforcing the negative associations of the term ‘multimorbidity’.

THE PATIENT’S EXPERIENCE

How can one word to sum up the experience of individual people, who have varied combinations of medical conditions, set in the context of their real lives, be sufficient? What is clear is that people understand the links between their medical conditions, the medication prescribed (including side effects and interactions), and have clear priorities and preferences.

Many patients bring lists of problems to their appointment; and the clinician working through such a list can ensure that the consultation is patient-centred.12 Figure 1 is an example of a note brought to a consultation by a patient. The patient has given permission for this summary to be used to help explain how a patient experiences what clinicians might describe as ‘multimorbidity’ or problems within a ‘biopsychosocial’ framework. Clearly this patient has made links between their condition and has indicated what their priorities are (the example has been modified to preserve anonymity).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

An example of notes that a patient brought to a consultation. The patient gave permission for this summary to be used: it has been redrafted and modified to preserve anonymity.

HOW TO BE MORE POSITIVE

Use of language matters, and getting it right (or wrong) can promote (or prevent) an ethos of shared endeavour between clinician and patient. So, what term should be used to reflect the complexity of living with more than one medically diagnosed condition, each possibly needing intervention? Suggestions from people attending the Keele conference focused either on conditions or needs. Experts by experience on the Taskforce suggest that ‘multiple health conditions’ and ‘living with a number of conditions’ would be more appropriate terms to use. In addition, ‘multiple health needs’, ‘coordinated care needs’, and ‘complex needs’, are all suggestions to replace the term ‘multimorbidity’.

Therefore, we suggest that the term ‘multimorbidity’ is not an acceptable term to a number of individuals, and we should open up discussion around what could be a more acceptable term for all. We hope that improved and negotiated language will lead to better communication and health outcomes.

Notes

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

All the authors are members of The Taskforce on Multiple Conditions, a cross-sector partnership between The Richmond Group of Charities, Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity, and the Royal College of General Practitioners.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2019

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Starfield B
    (2006) Threads and yarns: weaving the tapestry of comorbidity. Ann Fam Med 4(2):101–103.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Feinstein AR
    (1970) The pre-therapeutic classification of co-morbidity in chronic disease. J Chronic Dis 23(7):455–468.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Valderas JM,
    2. Starfield B,
    3. Sibbald B,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Defining comorbidity: implications for understanding health and health services. Ann Fam Med 7(4):357–363.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Fortin M,
    2. Stewart M,
    3. Poitras ME,
    4. et al.
    (2012) A systematic review of prevalence studies on multimorbidity: toward a more uniform methodology. Ann Fam Med 10(2):142–151.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Barnett K,
    2. Mercer SW,
    3. Norbury M,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet 380(9836):37–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
    (2016) Multimorbidity: clinical assessment and management, NICE guideline [NG56]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng56 (accessed 12 Jul 2019).
  7. 7.↵
    1. Paddison CA,
    2. Saunders CL,
    3. Abel GA,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Why do patients with multimorbidity in England report worse experiences in primary care? Evidence from the General Practice Patient Survey. BMJ Open 5(3):e006172.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Muth C,
    2. van den Akker M,
    3. Blom JW,
    4. et al.
    (2014) The Ariadne principles: how to handle multimorbidity in primary care consultations. BMC Med 12:223.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Mair FS,
    2. Gallacher KI
    (2017) Br J Gen Pract, Multimorbidity: what next? DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X690965.
  10. 10.↵
    1. The Taskforce on Multiple Conditions.
    (2018) “Just one thing after another”: Living with multiple conditions (The Richmond Group of Charities), A report from the Taskforce on Multiple Conditions. https://richmondgroupofcharities.org.uk/sites/default/files/final_just_one_thing_after_another_report_-_singles.pdf (accessed 12 Jul 2019).
  11. 11.↵
    1. Till R
    (2019) Physical-mental multimorbidity: Breaking down the silos (Medium), https://medium.com/@primarycare.news/physical-mental-multimorbidity-breaking-down-the-silos-c2c90c9d0e45 (accessed 12 Jul 2019).
  12. 12.↵
    1. The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP).
    Person-Centred Care (RCGP), https://www.rcgp.org.uk/clinical-and-research/our-programmes/person-centred-care.aspx (accessed 12 Jul 19).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 69 (685)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 69, Issue 685
August 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
‘Multimorbidity’: an acceptable term for patients or time for a rebrand?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
‘Multimorbidity’: an acceptable term for patients or time for a rebrand?
Carolyn Chew-Graham, Liam O’Toole, Jane Taylor, Chris Salisbury
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (685): 372-373. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X704681

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
‘Multimorbidity’: an acceptable term for patients or time for a rebrand?
Carolyn Chew-Graham, Liam O’Toole, Jane Taylor, Chris Salisbury
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (685): 372-373. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X704681
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • DEFINITIONS AND MEANINGS
    • NEGATIVE PERCEPTIONS
    • THE PATIENT’S EXPERIENCE
    • HOW TO BE MORE POSITIVE
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Practice-based pharmacists: considerations for general practices
  • Primary care: a national asset
  • Why should we prioritise smoking cessation for people with mental health conditions?
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242