Lifestyle factors have been associated mostly with individual chronic diseases. We investigated the relationship between lifestyle factors (individual and combined) and the co-occurrence of multiple chronic diseases.

PURPOSE We aimed to develop a consensus-based set of core outcomes specifically for studies in multimorbidity. METHODS We undertook a consensus study following the COS-STAR (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting) guidelines for the design and reporting of core outcome sets. A Delphi panel of experts completed a web-based survey with 2 rounds. Panelists were presented with a range of outcomes that had been identified in previous workshops and a related systematic review. They indicated their level of agreement on whether each outcome should be included in the core set using a 5-point Likert scale, and outcomes reaching a prespecified consensus level were included. RESULTS Of 30 individuals invited to be panelists, 26 from 13 countries agreed. All 26 completed both rounds of the survey. The Delphi panel reached consensus on 17 outcomes for inclusion in a core outcome set for multimorbidity (COSmm). The highest-ranked outcomes were health-related quality of life, mental health outcomes, and mortality. Other outcomes were grouped into overarching themes of patient-reported impacts and behaviors (treatment burden, self-rated health, self-management behavior, self-efficacy, adherence); physical activity and function (activities of daily living, physical function, physical activity); consultation related (communication, shared decision making, prioritization); and health systems (health care use, costs, quality of health care). CONCLUSIONS This consensus study involved a wide range of international experts who identified a large number of outcomes for multimorbidity intervention studies. Our results suggest that quality of life, mental health outcomes, and mortality should be regarded as essential core outcomes. Researchers should, however, also consider the full range of outcomes when designing studies to capture important domains in multimorbidity depending on individual study aims and interventions.

Background: Burnout among clinicians, including physicians, is a growing concern in healthcare. An overwhelming burden of clinical documentation is a significant contributor. While medical scribes have been employed to mitigate this burden, they have limitations such as cost, training needs, and high turnover rates. Artificial intelligence (AI) scribe systems can transcribe, summarize, and even interpret clinical conversations, offering a potential solution for improving clinician well-being. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of AI scribes in streamlining clinical documentation, with a focus on clinician experience, healthcare system efficiency, and patient engagement. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following Cochrane methods and PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers conducted the selection process independently. Eligible intervention studies included quantitative and mixed-methods studies evaluating AI scribe systems. We summarized the data narratively. Results: Eight studies were included. AI scribes demonstrated positive effects on healthcare provider engagement, with users reporting increased involvement in their workflows. The documentation burden showed signs of improvement, as AI scribes helped alleviate the workload for some participants. Many clinicians have found AI systems to be user-friendly and intuitive, although some have expressed concerns about scribe training and documentation quality. A limited impact on reducing burnout was found, although documentation time improved in some studies. Conclusions: Most of the studies reported in this review involved small sample sizes and specific healthcare settings, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other contexts. Accuracy and consistency can vary significantly depending on the specific technology, model training data, and implementation approach. AI scribes show promise in improving documentation efficiency and clinician workflow, although the evidence remains limited and heterogeneous. Broader and real-world evaluations are needed to confirm their effectiveness and inform responsible implementations.

Objective Determine the effectiveness of digital mental health interventions for individuals with a concomitant chronic disease. Design We conducted a rapid review of systematic reviews. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection and risk of bias evaluation. A standardised extraction form was used. Data are reported narratively. Interventions We included systematic reviews of digital health interventions aiming to prevent, detect or manage mental health problems in individuals with a pre-existing chronic disease, including chronic mental health illnesses, published in 2010 or after. Main outcome measure Reports on mental health outcomes (eg, anxiety symptoms and depression symptoms). Results We included 35 reviews, totalling 702 primary studies with a total sample of 50 692 participants. We structured the results in four population clusters: (1) chronic diseases, (2) cancer, (3) mental health and (4) children and youth. For populations presenting a chronic disease or cancer, health provider directed digital interventions (eg, web-based consultation, internet cognitive–behavioural therapy) are effective and safe. Further analyses are required in order to provide stronger recommendations regarding relevance for specific population (such as children and youth). Web-based interventions and email were the modes of administration that had the most reports of improvement. Virtual reality, smartphone applications and patient portal had limited reports of improvement. Conclusions Digital technologies could be used to prevent and manage mental health problems in people living with chronic conditions, with consideration for the age group and type of technology used.

Chronic diseases represent a major challenge for health care and social services. A number of people with chronic diseases require more services due to characteristics that increase their vulnerability. Given the burden of increasingly vulnerable patients on primary care, a pragmatic intervention in four Family Medicine Groups (primary care practices in Quebec, Canada) has been proposed for individuals with chronic diseases (diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, musculoskeletal diseases and/or chronic pain) who are frequent users of hospital services. The intervention combines case management by a nurse with group support meetings encouraging self-management based on the Stanford Chronic Disease Self-Management Program. The goals of this study are to: (1) analyze the implementation of the intervention in the participating practices in order to determine how the various contexts have influenced the implementation and the observed effects; (2) evaluate the proximal (self-efficacy, self-management, health habits, activation and psychological distress) and intermediate (empowerment, quality of life and health care use) effects of the intervention on patients; (3) conduct an economic analysis of the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

Background: People with chronic diseases can benefit from wearable devices in managing their health and encouraging healthy lifestyle habits. Wearables such as activity trackers or blood glucose monitoring devices can lead to positive health impacts, including improved physical activity adherence or better management of type 2 diabetes. Few literature reviews have focused on the intersection of various chronic diseases, the wearable devices used, and the outcomes evaluated in intervention studies, particularly in the context of primary health care. Objective: This study aims to identify and describe (1) the chronic diseases represented in intervention studies, (2) the types or combinations of wearables used, and (3) the health or health care outcomes assessed and measured. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines, searching the MEDLINE and Web of Science databases for studies published between 2012 and 2022. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, applied the selection criteria, and performed full-text screening. We included interventions using wearables that automatically collected and transmitted data to adult populations with at least one chronic disease. We excluded studies with participants with only a predisposition to develop a chronic disease, hospitalized patients, patients with acute diseases, patients with active cancer, and cancer survivors. We included randomized controlled trials and cohort, pretest-posttest, observational, mixed methods, and qualitative studies. Results: After the removal of 1987 duplicates, we screened 4540 titles and abstracts. Of the remaining 304 articles after exclusions, we excluded 215 (70.7%) full texts and included 89 (29.3%). Of these 89 texts, 10 (11%) were related to the same interventions as those in the included studies, resulting in 79 studies being included. We structured the results according to chronic disease clusters: (1) diabetes, (2) heart failure, (3) other cardiovascular conditions, (4) hypertension, (5) multimorbidity and other combinations of chronic conditions, (6) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, (7) chronic pain, (8) musculoskeletal conditions, and (9) asthma. Diabetes was the most frequent health condition (18/79, 23% of the studies), and wearable activity trackers were the most used (42/79, 53% of the studies). In the 79 included studies, 74 clinical, 73 behavioral, 36 patient technology experience, 28 health care system, and 25 holistic or biopsychosocial outcomes were reported. Conclusions: This scoping review provides an overview of the wearable devices used in chronic disease self-management intervention studies, revealing disparities in both the range of chronic diseases studied and the variety of wearable devices used. These findings offer researchers valuable insights to further explore health care outcomes, validate the impact of concomitant device use, and expand their use to other chronic diseases. Trial Registration: Open Science Framework Registries (OSF) s4wfm; https://osf.io/s4wfm