Data from: Prevalence and outcomes of multimorbidity in South Asia: a systematic review

Objective: To systematically review the studies of prevalence, patterns and consequences of multimorbidity reported from South Asia. Design: Systematic Review. Setting: South Asia. Data sources: Articles were retrieved from two electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) and from the relevant references lists. A methodic data extraction, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was followed. English-language studies published between 2000 and March 2015 were included. Eligibility criteria: Studies addressing prevalence, consequences, and patterns of multimorbidity in South Asia. Articles documenting presence of two or more chronic conditions were included in the review. The quality and risk of bias were assessed using STROBE criteria. Data selection: Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality. Due to heterogeneity in methodologies among reported studies, only narrative synthesis of the results was carried out. Results: Out of 11,132, 61 abstracts were selected and 13 were included for final data synthesis. The number of health conditions analysed per study varied from 7 to 22, with prevalence of multimorbidity from 4.5% to 83%. The leading chronic conditions were hypertension, arthritis, diabetes, cardiac problems and skin diseases. The most frequently reported outcomes were increased health care utilization, lowered physical functioning, quality of life and psychological distress. Conclusions: Our study, a comprehensive mapping of multimorbidity research in South Asia reveals the insufficient volume of work done in this domain. The published studies are inadequate to provide the indication of the magnitude of multimorbidity in these countries. Research into clinical and epidemiological aspects of multimorbidity is warranted to build up the scientific evidence in this geographic region. The wide heterogeneity observed in the present review calls for greater methodological rigor while conducting these epidemiological studies.