Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Learning Health Syst...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Learning Health Systems
Article . 2026 . Peer-reviewed
License: CC BY NC ND
Data sources: Crossref
addClaim

Shared Experiences and Care Improvement Priorities for Multimorbidity Management: An Experience‐Based Co‐Design Study

Authors: Binu Koirala; Chitchanok Benjasirisan; Arum Lim; Katie E. Nelson; Lyndsay DeGroot; Rebecca Wright; Cheryl R. Dennison Himmelfarb; +1 Authors

Shared Experiences and Care Improvement Priorities for Multimorbidity Management: An Experience‐Based Co‐Design Study

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Multimorbidity—coexistence of two or more chronic conditions in the same individual—is a growing global healthcare challenge. Despite recognition of the difficulties in managing multimorbidity, there is a limited understanding of lived experiences and care improvement priorities as identified by key stakeholders. Objectives The study aimed to explore lived experiences of patients with multimorbidity, their family caregivers, and interprofessional healthcare workers, and to identify shared care improvement priorities. These findings were synthesized into a multimorbidity management toolkit. Methods An experience‐based co‐design study with six stages was implemented, considering human‐centered design. Participants included patients aged 50 years and above living with heart failure and multimorbidity, family caregivers, and multidisciplinary healthcare professionals recruited in Maryland, USA. Following study preparation and ethical approval (Stage 1), in‐depth individual interviews (Stages 2 and 3) were conducted, and the results were discussed during co‐design events and working group meetings (Stages 4 and 5) to reach a consensus on care priorities and specific strategies. The study findings were summarized into a multimorbidity management toolkit that was shared with participants at a celebration event (Stage 6). Data analysis included descriptive statistics and inductive thematic methods. Results Forty‐six individual interviews were conducted: 24 patients (mean ± SD age 71 ± 9 years; 54% women; with an average of 8 morbidities), 7 family caregivers (mean ± SD age 64 ± 14 years; 57% women), and 15 healthcare professionals (mean ± SD age 36 ± 10 years). A total of 18 participants attended two co‐design events. Multiple working group meetings were organized to receive diverse input. Four shared care improvement priorities emerged: (1) communication, (2) care coordination and follow‐up care, (3) mental and emotional support, and (4) health education for patients and caregivers. Conclusion Person‐centered care models that emphasize shared strategies to improve communication, care coordination, education, and emotional support, as outlined in the toolkit, may enhance multimorbidity management and patient outcomes.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average