Background: Geriatric patients have significant morbidity and greater needs for care and assistance. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics, morbidity, and use of services in primary care (PC) of patients with chronic diseases older than 65 years according to their risk level assigned by the adjusted morbidity groups (AMG) and to analyse the factors associated with the use of PC services. Methods: This was a cross-sectional descriptive observational study. Patients older than 65 years from a healthcare service area, classified as chronically ill by the AMG classification system of the PC electronic medical record of the Community of Madrid, were included. Sociodemographic, clinical-care, and PC service utilization variables were collected. Univariate, bivariate and multivariate analyses were done. Results: A total of 3292 chronic patients older than 65 years were identified, of whom 1628 (49.5%) were low risk, 1293 (39.3%) were medium risk and 371 (11.3%) were high risk. Their mean age was 78.1 (SD = 8.1) years and 2167 (65.8%) were women. Their mean number of chronic diseases was 3.8 (SD = 2), 89.4% had multimorbidity and 1550 (47.1%) were polymedicated. The mean number of contacts/year with PC was 19.5 (SD = 18.2) [men: 19.4 (SD = 19.8); women: 19.5 (SD = 17.4)]. The mean number of contacts/year in people over 85 years was 25.2 (SD = 19.6); in people 76–85 years old, it was 22.1 (SD = 20.3); and in people 66–75 years old, it was 14.5 (SD = 13.9). The factors associated with greater use of services were age (B coefficient [BC] = 0.3; 95%CI = 0.2–0.4), high risk level (BC = 1.9; 95%CI =0.4–3.2), weight of complexity (BC = 0.7; 95%CI = 0.5–0.8), and ≥ 4 chronic diseases (BC = 0.7; 95%CI = 0.3–1.1). Conclusions: In the geriatric population, we found a high number of patients with chronic diseases and there were three levels of risk by AMG with differences in characteristics, morbidity, and use of PC services. The greatest use of services was by patients with older age, high risk level, greater weight of complexity and ≥ 4 chronic diseases. Further research is needed to develop an intervention model more adapted to the reality of the geriatric population based on risk levels by AMG.

Adjusted morbidity groups (AMG) are being used in the stratification of chronic patients in Primary Care (PC). The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics, prevalence of comorbidities, and use of PC services by chronic paediatric patients as well as to analyse factors associated with the weight of complexity according to AMG. A cross-sectional study conducted on patients <18 years-old from a basic health area, classified as chronic according to the AMG of the Madrid Primary Care computerised clinical records. Sociodemographic and clinical-care variables were collected, as well as the use of services in PC. Univariate, bivariate and linear regression analysis were performed. A total of 2,961 patients<18 years were included, of whom 423 (15.7%) were identified as chronic, and 408 (96.5%) were low risk patients. Their mean age was 9.5 (SD=4.7) years, and 54.1% were male. The mean of chronic diseases was 1.1 (SD=0.4) and 11.3% had multiple morbidity. The most prevalent diseases were asthma (6.1%), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (1.8%), and obesity (1.4%). The mean number of visits to the paediatrician was 4.9 (SD=6.3). Age<5 years-old (Coefficient B [CB]=2.6, 95% CI=2.1, 3.1), number of chronic diseases (CB=1.6, 95% CI=1.1; 2.1), and annual contacts with PC (CB=0.1, 95% CI=0.06; 0.11) were associated with greater complexity weight. A significant number of patients with chronic diseases were found in the paediatric population. The most prevalent diseases were asthma, ADHD, and obesity. The use of PC services was high. The greatest complexity corresponded to nursing and pre-school age, multiple morbidity, and higher number of contacts with PC.

To estimate the prevalence of nonadherence to treatment and its relationship with social support and social context in patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy followed-up in primary care. This was an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, multicenter study with an analytical approach. A total of 593 patients between 65–74 years of age with multimorbidity (≥3 diseases) and polypharmacy (≥5 drugs) during the last three months and agreed to participate in the MULTIPAP Study. The main variable was adherence (Morisky-Green). The predictors were social support (structural support and functional support (DUFSS)); sociodemographic variables; indicators of urban objective vulnerability; health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L-VAS & QALY); and clinical variables. Descriptive, bivariate and multivariate analyses with logistic regression models and robust estimators were performed. Four out of ten patients were nonadherent, 47% had not completed primary education, 28.7% had an income ≤1050 €/month, 35% reported four or more IUVs, and the average perceived health-related quality of life (HRQOL) EQ-5D-5L-VAS was 65.5. The items that measure functional support, with significantly different means between nonadherent and adherent patients were receiving love and affection (-0.23; 95%CI: -0.40;-0.06), help when ill (-0.25; 95%CI: -0.42;-0.08), useful advice (-0.20; 95%CI: -0.37;-0.02), social invitations (-0.22; 95%CI:-0.44;-0.01), and recognition (-0.29; 95%CI:-0.50;-0.08). Factors associated with nonadherence were belonging to the medium vs. low tertile of functional support (0.62; 95%CI: 0.42;0.94), reporting less than four IUVs (0.69; 95%CI: 0.46;1.02) and higher HRQOL perception (0.98; 95%CI: 0.98;0.99). Among patients 65–74 years of age with multimorbidity and polypharmacy, lower functional support was related to nonadherence to treatment. The nonadherence decreased in those patients with higher functional support, lower urban vulnerability and higher perceived health status according to the visual analog scale of health-related quality of life.

People experiencing homelessness (PEH) have a higher prevalence of adverse health outcomes and premature mortality compared to the non-homeless population. These include a higher burden of cancer and cancer-specific morbidity and mortality—outcomes that may be a consequence of significant barriers to accessing primary and secondary prevention and community health services. This study aimed to better comprehend the health needs and barriers to accessing preventive cancer care for PEH across four European countries as well as necessary considerations for developing interventions around cancer prevention for this population. In this exploratory qualitative study, 69 semi-structured interviews were conducted across Austria, Greece, Spain, and the UK, with a sample comprising 15 professionals working in homelessness support services, 19 health professionals, and 35 PEH. Interviews took place between August 1 and October 31, 2021, and data were analysed inductively and iteratively following a thematic approach. Findings were organised into two overarching themes: (1) Experiences and understanding of cancer prevention and treatment and (2) Considerations for program interventions. While cancer was a significant worry among PEH across all settings, they generally had minimal knowledge and understanding of cancer symptoms and prevention. Specific programs for cancer prevention for PEH were described as almost non-existent. Health professionals in some settings indicated that cancer in PEH was often missed in the early stages and instead diagnosed when the severity of symptoms intensified. Overall, our findings indicate many commonalities in the health needs of PEH and the barriers they face when they seek access to cancer-specific healthcare services in the European context. This study received funding from the 10.13039/501100007601 European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under GA 965351.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed gaps and areas of need in health systems worldwide. This work aims to map the evidence on COVID-19-related healthcare needs of adult patients, their family members, and the professionals involved in their care during the first year of the pandemic. We searched the databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full texts for eligibility. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Descriptive data were extracted and inductive qualitative content analysis was used to generate codes and derive overarching themes. Thirty-six studies met inclusion criteria, with the majority reporting needs from the perspective of professionals (35/36). Professionals’ needs were grouped into three main clusters (basic, occupational, and psycho-socio-emotional needs); patients’ needs into four (basic, healthcare, psycho-socio-emotional, and other support needs); and family members’ needs into two (psycho-socio-emotional and communication needs). Transversal needs across subgroups were also identified and grouped into three main clusters (public safety, information and communication, and coordination and support needs). This evidence map provides valuable insight on COVID-19-related healthcare needs. More research is needed to assess first-person perspectives of patients and their families, examine whether needs differ by country or region, and evaluate how needs have evolved over time.

A better understanding of patients' adherence to treatment is a prerequisite to maximize the benefit of healthcare provision for patients, reduce treatment costs, and is a key factor in a variety of subsequent health outcomes. We aim to understand the state of the art of scientific evidence about which factors influence patients' adherence to treatment. A systematic literature review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines in five separate electronic databases of scientific publications: PubMed, PsycINFO (ProQuest), Cochrane library (Ovid), Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The search focused on literature reporting the significance of factors in adherence to treatment between 2011 and 2021, including only experimental studies (e.g., randomized controlled trials [RCT], clinical trials, etc.). We included 47 experimental studies. The results of the systematic review (SR) are grouped according to predetermined categories of the World Health Organization (WHO): socioeconomic, treatment, condition, personal, and healthcare‐related factors. This review gives an actual overview of evidence‐based studies on adherence and analyzed the significance of factors defined by the WHO classification. By showing the strength of certain factors in several independent studies and concomitantly uncovering gaps in research, these insights could serve as a basis for the design of future adherence studies and models.