Public Perceptions of Multiple Long-Term Conditions: An Analysis of Mass Observation Accounts.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Sue Bellass, Thomas Scharf, Victoria Bartle, Avan A Sayer, Rachel Cooper
{"title":"Public Perceptions of Multiple Long-Term Conditions: An Analysis of Mass Observation Accounts.","authors":"Sue Bellass, Thomas Scharf, Victoria Bartle, Avan A Sayer, Rachel Cooper","doi":"10.1111/hex.70868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The growing number of people living with two or more long-term conditions presents challenges to medicine and society. While the terminology of 'multiple long-term conditions' (MLTC) or 'multimorbidity' has increasingly been adopted in research, policy and clinical practice, how the public responds to 'MLTC' remains underexplored. Given the important implications for research inclusion and intervention uptake, we aimed to address this gap by investigating public perceptions of MLTC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Mass Observation Project respondents were invited to share their views on MLTC. We collated the five words that respondents were asked to provide when hearing the term 'multiple long-term health conditions' and compared the responses of people with and without MLTC. We then reviewed each full written account and identified categories describing the different ways in which the respondents referred to MLTC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 141 valid responses, 76 (53.9%) were written by people living with MLTC, two thirds of whom (67.1%) were aged 60 or over. Regardless of MLTC status, respondents predominantly associated MLTC with challenging embodied experiences such as pain and debilitation. We identified four types of response to 'MLTC': adopting, overlooking, resisting and rejecting. Around half the respondents (51.8%) adopted the construct, with 11.3% resisting or rejecting it due to concerns about its utility, incongruence with personal experience, or medicalisation of human experiences of illness.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MLTC were predominantly associated with challenging embodied experiences, and the construct was not adopted by all respondents. Researchers, clinicians and policymakers should carefully consider how to describe the construct of MLTC in public-facing materials to optimise research inclusion and intervention uptake.</p><p><strong>Patient or public contribution: </strong>Co-author VB was a public co-investigator within the ADMISSION Research Collaborative. VB was involved from the outset of this project, contributing to the directive design, data interpretation workshops, critical review of the draft manuscript and approval of the final version. Findings from the study have also been discussed with the ADMISSION Patient Advisory Group, a diverse group of patients and carers with lived experience of MLTC who provided advice to ADMISSION Research Collaborative researchers at regular intervals throughout the lifetime of the funding.</p>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"29 5","pages":"e70868"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13573228/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70868","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The growing number of people living with two or more long-term conditions presents challenges to medicine and society. While the terminology of 'multiple long-term conditions' (MLTC) or 'multimorbidity' has increasingly been adopted in research, policy and clinical practice, how the public responds to 'MLTC' remains underexplored. Given the important implications for research inclusion and intervention uptake, we aimed to address this gap by investigating public perceptions of MLTC.

Methods: Mass Observation Project respondents were invited to share their views on MLTC. We collated the five words that respondents were asked to provide when hearing the term 'multiple long-term health conditions' and compared the responses of people with and without MLTC. We then reviewed each full written account and identified categories describing the different ways in which the respondents referred to MLTC.

Results: Of 141 valid responses, 76 (53.9%) were written by people living with MLTC, two thirds of whom (67.1%) were aged 60 or over. Regardless of MLTC status, respondents predominantly associated MLTC with challenging embodied experiences such as pain and debilitation. We identified four types of response to 'MLTC': adopting, overlooking, resisting and rejecting. Around half the respondents (51.8%) adopted the construct, with 11.3% resisting or rejecting it due to concerns about its utility, incongruence with personal experience, or medicalisation of human experiences of illness.

Conclusion: MLTC were predominantly associated with challenging embodied experiences, and the construct was not adopted by all respondents. Researchers, clinicians and policymakers should carefully consider how to describe the construct of MLTC in public-facing materials to optimise research inclusion and intervention uptake.

Patient or public contribution: Co-author VB was a public co-investigator within the ADMISSION Research Collaborative. VB was involved from the outset of this project, contributing to the directive design, data interpretation workshops, critical review of the draft manuscript and approval of the final version. Findings from the study have also been discussed with the ADMISSION Patient Advisory Group, a diverse group of patients and carers with lived experience of MLTC who provided advice to ADMISSION Research Collaborative researchers at regular intervals throughout the lifetime of the funding.

公众对多种长期条件的看法:对大量观察报告的分析。
越来越多的人患有两种或两种以上的长期疾病,这给医学和社会带来了挑战。虽然“多重长期疾病”(MLTC)或“多重疾病”的术语在研究、政策和临床实践中越来越多地被采用,但公众对“多重长期疾病”的反应仍未得到充分探讨。鉴于对研究纳入和干预措施吸收的重要意义,我们旨在通过调查公众对MLTC的看法来解决这一差距。方法:通过大众观察项目,邀请受访者分享他们对MLTC的看法。我们整理了受访者在听到“多种长期健康状况”一词时被要求提供的五个词,并比较了有和没有MLTC的人的反应。然后,我们审查了每个完整的书面记录,并确定了描述受访者提到MLTC的不同方式的类别。结果:141份有效问卷中,76份(53.9%)是由MLTC患者撰写的,其中三分之二(67.1%)的受访者年龄在60岁及以上。无论MLTC状态如何,受访者主要将MLTC与具有挑战性的具体体验(如疼痛和衰弱)联系起来。我们确定了对“MLTC”的四种反应:采用、忽视、抵制和拒绝。大约一半的受访者(51.8%)采用了这个结构,11.3%的人由于担心它的实用性、与个人经历不一致或人类疾病经历的医学化而抵制或拒绝它。结论:MLTC主要与挑战性具身体验相关,并不是所有被调查者都采用该结构。研究人员、临床医生和政策制定者应该仔细考虑如何在面向公众的材料中描述MLTC的结构,以优化研究纳入和干预措施的吸收。患者或公众贡献:作者VB是入院研究合作的公共共同研究者。VB从项目一开始就参与其中,参与了指令设计、数据解释研讨会、草稿审阅和最终版本的批准。研究结果也与入院患者咨询小组进行了讨论,该小组由具有MLTC生活经验的不同患者和护理人员组成,他们在资助的整个生命周期内定期向入院研究合作研究人员提供建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书