
==== Front
Health Qual Life Outcomes
Health Qual Life Outcomes
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
1477-7525 BioMed Central London 

1689
10.1186/s12955-021-01689-w
Research
Understanding patient outcomes to develop a multimorbidity adapted patient-reported outcomes measure: a qualitative description of patient and provider perspectives
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1694-1414Sasseville Maxime austinchristopher@example.org@ulaval.ca 12 Chouinard Maud-Christine 3 Fortin Martin 4 1 grid.265696.80000 0001 2162 9981Department of Health Sciences, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, 555 boulebard université, Chicoutimi, Québec G7H 2B1 Canada 
2 grid.23856.3a0000 0004 1936 8390Nursing Faculty, Université Laval, 2325, rue de l'Université, Québec, QC G1V 0A6 Canada 
3 grid.(318)548-5727 0001 2292 3357Nursing Faculty, Université de Montréal, Pavillon Marguerite-d'Youville, C.P. 6128 succ. Centre-ville, Montréal, QC H3C 3J7 Canada 
4 grid.86715.3d0000 0000 9064 6198Research Chair on Chronic Diseases in Primary Care, Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, 3001, 12e Avenue Nord, Sherbrooke, QC J1H 5N4 Canada 
4 2 2021 
4 2 2021 
2021 
19 435 8 2020 25 1 2021 © The Author(s) 2021Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.Background
Multimorbidity is a complex health situation that requires interventions tailored to patient needs; the outcomes of such interventions are difficult to evaluate. The purpose of this study was to describe the outcomes of patient-centred interventions for people with multimorbidity from the patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives.


Methods
This study followed a qualitative descriptive design. Nine patients with multimorbidity and 18 healthcare professionals (nurses, general practitioners, nutritionists, and physical and respiratory therapists), participating in a multimorbidity-adapted intervention in primary care were recruited. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with 12 open-ended questions. Triangulation of disciplines among interviewers, research team debriefing, data saturation assessment and iterative data collection and analysis ensured a rigorous research process.


Results
Outcome constructs described by participants covered a wide range of themes and were grouped into seven outcome domains: Health Management, Physical Health, Functional Status, Psychosocial Health, Health-related Behaviours, General Health and Health Services. The description of constructs by stakeholders provides valuable insight on how outcomes are experienced and worded by patients.

Conclusion
Participants described a wide range of outcome constructs, which were relevant to and observable by patients and were in line with the clinical reality. The description provides a portrait of multimorbidity-adapted intervention outcomes that are significant for the selection and development of clinical research outcome measures.

Keywords
Chronic diseasesQualitative descriptionMultimorbidityPatient-centred carePatient-reported outcomesSelf-managementissue-copyright-statement© The Author(s) 2021
==== Body
Introduction/background
Multimorbidity is the co-occurrence of multiple chronic conditions in the same individual [1] and is associated with poorer quality of life [2, 3], psychological distress [4–6], lower physical function [7], polypharmacy and adverse drug events [8] and care duplicity and inconsistencies [9, 10]. Chronic disease management interventions adapted for persons with multimorbidity are used as a patient-centred method of care. However, clear evidence of their effectiveness is still lacking, partly because existing measures are not adapted to these interventions due to their multidimensional nature [1].

Patient-centred care is defined as the individualized provision of care using a compassionate approach and incorporating contextual elements to support patient self-determination [11]. Thus, multimorbidity-adapted intervention based on patient-centred care focuses on encouraging patient self-management and decision-making and the individualization of patient care [10, 11]. A recently updated systematic review on these interventions identified the need for an outcome measure adapted to multimorbidity [1], as most generic measures do not cover the full array of effects identified in the literature [12].

The direct report of a health condition by a patient without a clinician's interpretation is called a patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) and may be in line with the patient-centred approach of interventions adapted to multimorbidity [13, 14]. The Canadian Institute for Health Information point that PROM are essential to understand if interventions are influencing the patient quality of life [15]. PROM is also supported by the health ministers of the member countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), who have identified its value in measuring what matters to patients [16].

In keeping with the recommendations for minimum standards for PROM, the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) identified that a PROM should be based on a measurement model developed using the intended population [17]. Guidelines for developing a PROM suggests that qualitative input is necessary to develop the domains, constructs and items to be measured to improve content validity [13, 18]. For PROM development, the aim of the sampling is to obtain representative experiences not representative population, thus multiple subgroups may be used [19]. Given that patient outcomes of a clinical intervention can be observed by both patients and healthcare providers, both subgroups were considered [20]. As yet, there is still no qualitative understanding of which outcomes result from a patient-centred multimorbidity intervention.

The main goal of this qualitative study was to describe patient and healthcare providers' perspectives on patient outcomes resulting from a patient-centred care intervention for patients with multimorbidity. The analysis also wanted to inform the development of a PROM for chronic disease management interventions for persons with multimorbidity. As a first step of the development of a PROM, a scoping review was completed on PROM used in multimorbidity-adapted interventions [21].

Method
The study used a qualitative descriptive design [20] and the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) were used to guide, conduct and report this study [22].

Recruitment and sample
Participants were recruited after they participated in an interdisciplinary chronic disease management intervention conducted in Québec, Canada and clinically implemented in six family medicine groups (FMGs). This intervention was based on the patient-centered care orientations set out by the Québec government's department of health concerning the management of people with chronic conditions, i.e., self-management support, patient-centred care, motivational interviewing, interprofessional collaboration and integration of services [23]. In the participating FMGs, healthcare professionals (nutritionists, kinesiologists and other professionals) were added to primary care teams of physicians and nurses to work collaboratively in providing care for patients with multiples chronic diseases and risk factors [24]. The participating professionals received an average of 7.8 h of training on patient-centered care self-management support and interprofessional collaboration prior to implementation in FMGs. Patients with three or more chronic diseases received a patient-centred chronic disease management intervention adapted to their needs and health objectives by the interdisciplinary primary care team [24]. Patients received in average 2.6 h of interventions over the 4-month period of the intervention study.

The sample in this study includes patients and healthcare providers. We used a maximum variation sampling method based on chronic conditions, gender and age to recruit the patients sample from the intervention [19]. The healthcare providers recruited for the study participated in the intervention and were interviewed to expand the description of patients' outcome experience.

Data collection
We used semi-structured interviews using two interview guides, i.e., one for each group, the only difference being in the wording of the questions, in order to focus on patient outcomes in the interviews with the providers. The structure of the guides was based on the outcome domains identified in the aforementioned scoping review [21]. The questions in the preliminary interview guide used outcomes constructs identified in MM interventions studies grouped in domains: health management, functional status, psychosocial health, health-related behaviours, general health and health services. The last question was formulated in general to allow patients to express if the intervention helped them to change other aspects of their life. Table 1 provides the questions asked during the patient interviews. The interview guide also included sub-questions to clarify or deepen the description. For example, the question "To what extent has the intervention influenced your physical health?" could be followed by "Which symptoms were influenced?" or "Could you give precisions on how much [symptom] was influenced?". The interview guides were pretested with each group of participants (patients and healthcare providers) and subsequently minor wording changes were made [25]. Individual interviews were conducted in person or by phone (one interview) by five interviewers from different disciplines (nursing, medicine and social sciences) over an 8-month period in 2016–2017. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and then imported into NVivo 11 software for data sorting and analysis. Field notes were taken to report the general feeling or specific observations made during the interview.Table 1 Interview questions from the adjusted version of the guide

For which chronic conditions do you get support from healthcare providers in the intervention?	
How are you managing your health at home?	
To what extent has the intervention influenced your health status?	
To what extent has the intervention influenced your knowledge about your health?	
To what extent has the intervention influenced your physical health?	
To what extent has the intervention influenced your quality of life?	
To what extent has the intervention influenced your mood?	
To what extent has the intervention influenced your ability to have health-related behaviours?	
To what extent has the intervention influenced your ability to do social activities with family and friends?	
To what extent has the intervention influenced your ability to get support from family and friends?	
To what extent has the intervention helped you to attain your health objectives?	
To what extent has the intervention helped you to change other parts of your life?	


Data analysis
Data was collected and analyzed iteratively to obtain an evolving thematic analysis and the research team's clinical experience was used to generate themes relevant to a clinical context [25]. In line with the Thorne methodology [26], the previously conducted scoping review on PROM used in MM studies was used as a preliminary framework to create the initial coding scheme. The first author (MS) conducted the coding and evolving thematic analysis and MF and MCC validated the process in biweekly meetings using representative quotes. Data saturation was documented by subgroups of participants using a data saturation table [25].

Results
Twenty-seven participants were recruited across all six settings. The sample consisted of nine patients with multimorbidity, nine nurses, two physicians, four nutritionists, two physical therapists and one respiratory therapist. Participant characteristics are presented in Table 2. Interview length varied from 26 to 71 min and data saturation was reached after interviewing seven patients and 13 providers; two more patients and one of each type of provider [5] were interviewed with no new themes emerging.Table 2 Sample characteristics

Patient characteristics (n = 9)		
Sex (male), n (%)	5 (55.6)	
Age (mean, in years)	55	
Education level, n (%)		
 High school	1 (11.1)	
 College	6 (66.7)	
 University	2 (22.2)	
Marital status, n (%)		
 Married	6 (66.7)	
 Divorced or separated	3 (33.3)	
 Single never married	0 (0)	
Working, n (%)	1 (11.1)	
Number of chronic conditions, n (%)		
 3–4	4 (44.4)	
 5–6	3 (33.3)	
 7 or more	2 (22.2)	
Healthcare providers (n = 18)		
Profession, n (%)		
 Nurses	9 (50)	
 Physicians	2 (11.1)	
 Nutritionists	4 (22.2)	
 Physical therapists	2 (11.1)	
 Respiratory therapist	1 (5.6)	
Age group (in years), n (%)		
 Under 30	5 (27.8)	
 30–39	5 (27.8)	
 40–49	5 (27.8)	
 50–59	1 (5.6)	
 60 and older	2 (11.1)	
Length of practice (in years), n (%)		
 Fewer than 5	4 (22.2)	
 6–10	2 (11.1)	
 11–15	6 (33.3)	
 16–20	2 (11.1)	
 21–25	2 (11.1)	
 More than 25	2 (11.1)	


Participants described 19 outcomes that we grouped according to the domain classification from our previous scoping review [21]: Health Management, Physical Health, Functional Status, Psychosocial Health, Health-related Behaviours, General Health and Health Services. Thematic organization of domains and outcomes that have emerged from the qualitative description (in comparison with the preliminary framework) are presented in Table 3.Table 3 Organization of outcomes

Domain	Outcomes	
Health management	Awarenessa	
	Knowledge acquisition	
	Power over health	
	Self-efficacy	
	Health goal attainment	
	Self-management	
Physical healtha	Pain and physical symptomsa	
	Energya	
	Weight controla	
Functional Status	Autonomy in daily activities	
Psychosocial health	Anxiety	
	Well-being	
Health-related behaviours	Physical activity	
	Healthy eating	
	Smoking habitsa	
	Alcohol consumption habitsa	
General health	Quality of life	
Health services	Patient satisfactiona	
	Services use	
aEmerged from the qualitative study (compared with preliminary framework)



Health management domain
Talking about their conditions and health behaviours helped patients by making them more aware of how they value their health and realize that their health is important to them.Confessions about alcohol consumption and smoking behaviours raised my awareness about the state of my health state [pause]. It made me aware that health was important for me. (patient 1)



Knowledge was acquired concerning health-related behaviours, symptom management and long-term complications. A participant explained that he now knows how to adopt healthy eating behaviours using examples of plate size to demonstrate his understanding. Participants described knowledge acquisition as being newly mindful of the long-term complication of chronic diseases that prompted to better manage their health condition.I now have some tricks for doing physical activity without getting a "hypo" [hypoglycemia]. (patient 4)



Participants identified a new awareness of the power they had over their health and how it helped them regain control over it. In relation to power over health, a process of transfer of power over health decisions was described by participants.I have a healthcare team, but part of the power is mine, I want to take back the power over my life. (patient 7).



Participants described feeling an increased capacity to self-manage their health and knowing when external assistance is necessary. Self-efficacy was further described as a patient's initial success, producing a feeling of capacity. Being able to express, pursue and attain their own health goals was an important outcome for the participants.They are proud, it gives them so much self-confidence, to be able to have successes. It is wonderful, it gives them a feeling of capacity. (provider 3)



Moreover, participants mentioned that goal attainment should be the principal outcome pursued by an intervention for patients with multimorbidity.Interviewer: Your objective was to not take medication? Participant: Yes, if I follow the recommendations for my eating habits, I should be able to obtain an acceptable cholesterol level. (patient 9)



Participants described self-management of health conditions as an overarching result of other outcomes. Learning about their health conditions, complications and health-related behaviours were key components identified as helping patients act to manage their conditions.[…] they [patients] are going to better understand their diseases, and then feel responsible for their management. (provider 12)



Physical health domain
Physical health outcomes were described as an improvement in multiple physical manifestations of chronic conditions, including pain improvable by the multimorbidity intervention.I have less pain, better digestion, less diarrhea, less stomach pain. (patient 7)



Increased energy levels to complete daily tasks and health-related behaviours were reported, helping patients to "get moving." Participants added that improved disease management leads to an increase in available energy for daily tasks.It gives me fuel to start the day, it's getting me moving. (patient 7)



Weight loss and the ability to prevent further weight gain also constituted a relevant outcome described by participants. Regarding weight control, participants pointed out that a stable weight should also be considered significant for some patients.I have lost 15 pounds since July, and I am maintaining it. (patient 5)



Functional status domain
Overall physical health significantly influenced autonomy in daily activities. Participants further stated that health status improvement and pain control had an impact on patient autonomy in daily activities such as cooking, cleaning and getting dressed. It was described that the intervention helped patients understand the interlinked nature of their condition, indicating that improvements in health status increased their ability to complete daily tasks.They felt less limited, with fewer physical, psychological and physiological limitations that affected their daily living. (provider 10)



Psychosocial health domain
Participants reported that engaging in self-management reduced their anxiety. It was also identified that knowledge acquisition improved specific stressors and further acknowledged that transferring control of the health situation to patients was beneficial for patient anxiety.It helped me get moving and activate my brain, and that also calmed my anxiety. (patient 7)



Well-being was described as a process of living with a positive mindset and accepting one's health situation. Participants reported guilt reduction when they were told that they could make mistakes while engaging in their process of change.It helped me to live better, to better accept [pause] and live my life in relation with my health status. (patient 1)



Health-related behaviours domain
The physical activity outcome was described as new activities or changes in the type and duration of physical activities reported by patients.I have more energy and I want to get back into it [physical activity]. (patient 8)



Several outcomes were reported regarding patients' eating behaviours including portion size, meal schedule, choice of food and the introduction of fruits and vegetables.But that's it, it's the quantity [of food] that I need to be aware austinchristopher@example.org. (patient 08)

It's about what is good to eat, choosing fish for example, and avoiding bad food, like high-fat food. (patient 9)



Participants reported some improvement in smoking habits by cutting down from daily smoking to occasional smoking.My family physician told me several times that I needed to stop smoking and prescribed [nicotine] patches, but I was always relapsing, but the intervention was what I needed [to stop]. (patient 10).



A decrease in alcohol consumption was described as a change to non-alcoholic alternatives or fewer alcoholic beverages per day. Participants further explained that a reduction in alcohol consumption was linked to patient-centred objectives and readiness to change.Patients tell me: Since I've been drinking more water I have reduced my alcohol consumption. (provider 3).



General health domain
Reports of improved quality of life outcomes were described by participants as an overall effect of all factors influencing health. In terms of a general health outcome, participants also reported feeling healthier than before, saying that this had a positive influence on their overall mood. Participants described a life-changing experience brought by changing health habits and way of seeing health.With all the services, I would say that I have an 80% increase in quality of life […] you know, from having a place to be heard, get moral support and orientation. (patient 7).



Health services domain
Patients stated that their satisfaction with the health services received was closely related to a feeling of safety and an appropriate follow-up.I feel like I am in good hands, when I come here I feel like I'm going to get the answers that I rightfully deserve, I feel safe. (patient 4).



Primary care physicians reported seeing patients less frequently because they were being followed up by an entire team of healthcare providers.I saw these patients less, I kind of lost sight of them because they went to improve their condition with other people [healthcare providers]. (provider 1)



Discussion
This study sought to describe patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives on patient outcomes resulting from a patient-centred care intervention for individuals with multimorbidity.

Patients and providers described health management outcomes as processes and acquired skills supporting self-management for people with multimorbidity. The description of the Health Management outcome domain includes awareness, knowledge acquisition, power over health, self-efficacy, health goal attainment and self-management. Consistent with previous literature, self-management was described as an endpoint outcome resulting from identified health needs and strategies to cope with chronic disease on a daily basis [27]. Participants reported the meaningful role of knowledge acquisition in allowing for self-management to occur. The description of power over health differed from the concept of empowerment in the literature on chronic disease management, defining a process of active development and use of knowledge, skills, confidence, satisfaction and positive thinking to enable control over one's life and self-health promotion [27]. The empowerment process, as it is defined in literature, was not expressed by patients and providers in our qualitative description. Rather, power over health was described as decisional authority over health acquired by the patient or transferred by the provider.

Physical health outcomes were described as improvements in physical symptoms as communicated by the participants, which included pain and physical symptom control, energy and weight management. Functional outcome was described differently in our study than in the concept analysis by Wang et al. [28]. The authors described the concept as measuring the level of activity required to perform daily tasks, while the participants in our analysis described this outcome as lowering the barriers to their autonomy in accomplishing daily tasks.

Psychological health was depicted as a reduction in general anxiety levels and an improvement in overall well-being. The literature describes psychological well-being as a positive mental state that helps people flourish [29]. Accordingly, participants in our study reported that accepting their health condition and feeling less guilty were key factors of psychosocial well-being.

Health-related behaviours outcomes were described as the introduction of new health behaviours to the patients' routine or change and improvement in existing behaviours. Smoking habits and alcohol consumption were not considered by previous multimorbidity-adapted interventions as relevant outcomes [21]. Providers reported that while they were rare occurrences, some patients experienced improvements in these habits.

The study participants stated that improving their quality of life was the main general health outcome of the intervention. While not described by patients or providers in our interviews, the measurement of general self-rated health status is used in intervention studies for people with multimorbidity [21]. Patients also described the general health concept using other, similar wording such as a feeling of being healthy and a life-changing feeling. These two themes were used by patients to express their feelings about improvements in their general health.

Care satisfaction was described as a feeling of security and rightful follow-up. Two family physicians reported a decrease in unplanned use of physician services and emergency departments, but not by patients with multimorbidity. Care utilization has been used as an outcome in a previously published multimorbidity intervention paper [30] and has shown mixed reliability for primary care visits [31]. Further exploration of the care utilization outcome is needed to assess the feasibility of a patient report in the context of multimorbidity intervention.

This study highlights how the process of improvement differs from the general population. Mainly, the participants identified the awareness of the health status as a first step, the consciousness of the power that they can have over their health, the sense of responsibility over their treatment, the acceptance of their health status and the improvement over energy levels before improving physical activity.

Strengths and limitations
This qualitative analysis provides a better understanding of the perspectives of both patients and providers on the results of an approach to care adapted to multimorbidity. The qualitative descriptive design uses the clinical experience of the research team throughout the data collection and analysis to ensure clinical relevance and application. This outcome description was developed using a triangulation of sources with both providers and patients offering real world descriptions of potential outcomes, and triangulation of interviewers' and researchers' backgrounds to enhance the validity of our data collection.

The first limitation is that the study looked at a single context of a particular chronic disease intervention for multimorbidity patients in which providers were trained in a multimorbidity-adapted care approach, which could have limited the range of outcomes identified and limits generalizability. A second limitation in the data collection method was the use of individual interviews only. Data collection including observation of clinical appointments or file reviews could have enhanced the description. However, this limitation is partly offset by the use of an iterative data collection process involving multidisciplinary interviewers and multiple sources (patients and healthcare providers).

Implications for research and practice
Our analysis offers a stakeholder understanding of relevant outcomes that are observable by patients. This description could be of use for multimorbidity research design and intervention evaluation for policy and practice, to assess outcomes relevant to patients. This analysis offers insight into the way outcomes are observed and worded by stakeholders, which is highly relevant for the development of patient-reported outcome measures. The description of the improvement process can significantly impact the items needed and how they are worded to gather relevant information. A description from the stakeholders' perspective is a requirement by the ISOQOL for the validity of the development of a PROM that is relevant to and observable by patients [17]. This qualitative description in association with evidence from literature will be essential in ensuring content validity in the development process.

Conclusions
Stakeholders described a wide range of outcome constructs that are relevant to and observable by patients and are in line with the clinical reality. The analysis provides a portrait of outcomes significant for the selection of clinical research outcome measures and the development of outcome measures.


Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the participants in this study and the chronic disease research chair in primary healthcare with recruiting the participants.

Authors' contributions
MS designed the study and wrote the paper under the supervision of MF and MCC. MS, MF and MCC collected and analyzed the data. All authors gave their final approval of the version of the manuscript submitted for publication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding
Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials
The datasets collected and analysed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by the research ethics committee of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean (reference number 2016-023). All participants gave their consent for the study and signed a consent form.

Consent for publication
Not applicable.

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
==== Refs
References
1. Smith S, Wallace E, O'Dowd T, Fortin M. Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. The Cochrane Library. 2016.
2. Fortin M  Bravo G  Hudon C  Lapointe L  Almirall J  Dubois M-F    Relationship between multimorbidity and latedelated quality of life of patients in primary care Qual Life Res 2006 15 1 83 91 10.1007/s11136-005-8661-z 16411033 
3. Brettschneider C  Leicht H  Bickel H  Dahlhaus A  Fuchs A  Gensichen J    Relative impact of multimorbid chronic conditions on health-related quality of life–results from the MultiCare Cohort Study PLoS ONE 2013 8 6 e66127-29-9442/journal.pone.0066742 23826124 
4. Gunn JM  Ayton DR  Densley K  Pallant JF  Chondros P  Herrman HE    The association between chronic illness, multimorbidity and depressive symptoms in an Australian primary care cohort Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2012 47 2 175 127-29-9442/s00127-010-0330-z 21184214 
5. Fortin M  Bravo G  Hudon C  Lapointe L  Dubois M-F  Almirall J   Psychological distress and multimorbidity in primary care Ann. Fam. Med. 2006 4 5 417 127-29-9442/afm.528 17003141 
6. Read J  Sharpe L  Modini M  Dear BF   Multimorbidity and depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Affect Disord 2017 221 36 46 10.1016/j.jad.2017.06.009 28628766 
7. Bayliss EA  Bayliss MS  Ware JE  Steiner JF   Predicting declines in physical function in persons with multiple chronic medical conditions: what we can learn from the medical problem list Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004 2 1 47 10.1186/1477-7525-2-47 15353000 
8. Guthrie B  McCowan C  Davey P  Simpson CR  Dreischulte T  Barnett K   High risk prescribing in primary care patients particularly vulnerable to adverse drug events: cross sectional population database analysis in Scottish general practice BMJ 2011 342 d3127-29-9442/bmj.d3514 21693525 
9. Guthrie B  Payne K  Alderson P  McMurdo MET  Mercer SW   Adapting clinical guidelines to take account of multimorbidity Br Med J 2012 345 e6127-29-9442/bmj.e6341 23036829 
10. Hughes LD  McMurdo MET  Guthrie B   Guidelines for people not for diseases: the challenges of applying UK clinical guidelines to people with multimorbidity Age Ageing 2013 42 1 62 69 10.1093/ageing/afs100 22910303 
11. Lusk JM  Fater K   A concept analysis of patient-centered care Nurs Forum 2013 48 2 89 98 10.1111/nuf.12019 23600637 
12. Smith SM  Wallace E  Salisbury C  Sasseville M  Bayliss E  Fortin M   A core outcome set for multimorbidity research (COSmm) Ann Fam Med 2018 16 2 132 127-29-9442/afm.2178 29531104 
13. Cappelleri JC  Zou KH  Bushmakin AG  Alvir JMJ  Alemayehu D  Symonds T   Patient-reported outcomes: measurement, implementation and interpretation 2013 1 Boca Raton, FL CRC Press 
14. Wallace E  Salisbury C  Guthrie B  Lewis C  Fahey T  Smith SM   Managing patients with multimorbidity in primary care Br Med J 2015 350 7992 h176-4 25646760 
15. Chow E  Faye L  Sawatzky R  Webster G  Cho MZ   PROMs background document 2015 Ottawa, ON Canadian Institute for Health Information 
16. Coulter A   Measuring what matters to patients Br Med J 2017 356 j127-29-9442/bmj.j816 28219884 
17. Reeve BB  Wyrwich KW  Wu AW  Velikova G  Terwee CB  Snyder CF    ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research Qual Life Res 2013 22 8 1889 1905 10.1007/s11136-012-0344-y 23288613 
18. U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. In: Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, editor. Silver Spring: Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration; 2013.
19. Lasch KE  Marquis P  Vigneux M  Abetz L  Arnould B  Bayliss M    PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation Qual Life Res 2010 19 8 1087 1127-29-9442/s11136-010-9677-6 20512662 
20. Thorne S   Interpretive description 2008 1 Walnut Creek, CA Left Coast Press 
21. Sasseville M  Chouinard M-C  Fortin M   Patient-reported outcomes in multimorbidity intervention research: a scoping review Int J Nurs Stud 2018 77 145 127-29-9442/j.ijnurstu.2017.09.016 29080440 
22. Jünger S  Payne SA  Brine J  Radbruch L  Brearley SG   Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: recommendations based on a methodological systematic review Palliat Med 2017 31 8 684 127-29-9442/0269216317690685 28190381 
23. Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux. Cadre de référence pour la prévention et la gestion des maladies chroniques physiques en première ligne. In: Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux, editor.: Gouvernement du Québec; 2012.
24. Stewart M  Fortin M   Patient-centred innovations for persons with multimorbidity: funded evaluation protocol CMAJ Open 2017 5 2 E127-29-9442/cmajo.20160097 
25. Miles MB  Huberman AM  Saldaña J   Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook 2013 Thousand Oaks, CA Sage 
26. Thorne S  Kirkham SR  O'Flynn-Magee K   The analytic challenge in interpretive description Int J Qual Methods 2004 3 1 1 11 10.1177/160940690400300101 
27. Miller WR  Lasiter S  Bartlett Ellis R  Buelow JM   Chronic disease self-management: a hybrid concept analysis Nurs Outlook 2015 63 2 154 127-29-9442/j.outlook.2014.07.005 25241136 
28. Wang T-J   Concept analysis of functional status Int J Nurs Stud 2004 41 4 457 127-29-9442/j.ijnurstu.2003.09.004 15050856 
29. Clarke A  Friede T  Putz R  Ashdown J  Martin S  Blake A    Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): validated for teenage school students in England and Scotland. A mixed methods assessment BMC Public Health 2011 11 1 127-29-9442/1471-2458-11-487 21693055 
30. Sommers LS  Marton KI  Barbaccia JC  Randolph J   Physician, nurse, and social worker collaboration in primary care for chronically ill seniors Arch Intern Med 2000 127-29-9442 1127-29-9442/archinte.127-29-9442 10871977 
31. Bhandari A  Wagner T   Self-reported utilization of health care services: improving measurement and accuracy Med Care Res Rev 2006 63 2 217 127-29-9442/1077558705285298 16595412


{'source': 'PubMedDataset'}