# data[].attributes.body
Global Innovation Network Programme — Uddannelses- og Forskningsstyrelsen

# data[].attributes.body
Netværkspulje

Er du en del af et mindre, fagligt netværk på Health? Så kan du søge om et økonomisk tilskud til et arrangement eller en aktivitet, der faciliterer fælles læring og vidensdeling.

Hvem kan søge?

Alle videnskabelige medarbejdere med ansættelse på Health på mindst postdoc-niveau kan søge. Initiativet er målrettet netværk, der er vokset frem i forskningsmiljøerne på Health, og ansøger er bevillingsmodtager på vegne af et forskerinitieret netværk.

Der er ikke krav om, at netværket er formelt nedsat, fx gennem vedtægter eller lignende, eller at netværket har et bestemt antal deltagere. Til gengæld er der en forventning om, at netværket har en substans, der rækker ud over det konkrete arrangement.

Ansøgninger fra Healths interdisciplinære forskningsnetværk samt akademier og nationale netværk vil ikke blive imødekommet.

# data[].attributes.headline
Oplevet behandlingsbyrde og livskvalitet ift. forbrug af sundhedsydelser

# data[].attributes.subject
Oplevet behandlingsbyrde og livskvalitet ift. forbrug af sundhedsydelser

# data[].attributes.body
I dag var oplægget om oplevet høj behandlingsbyrde og lav livskvalitet i sammenhæng med forbrug af sundhedsydelser blandt patienter, der var i to eller flere ambulante forløb (multisyge).

Et højt forbrug af AP kontakter var forbundet med begge dele, mens hospitalskontakter ikke var. Der var sammenhæng mellem at opleve høj behandlingsbyrde og lav livskvalitet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Checking your browser before accessing pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov…

# data[].attributes.body
Den 3-4 Juni sker det i København! Vi har samlet masser af danske og internationale navne til et to-dages symposium om multisygdom - fra epidemiologiske indsigter til virkelighedens problemstillinger. Kom og hør hvad der rører sig i multisygdomsforskning, deltag i paneldebatter og få muligheden for at præsentere din egen forskning. Tilmedling her: https://eupha.org/events/bridging-the-gap-in-multimorbidity-from-epidemiology-to-real-world-settings/

# data[].attributes.body
Jeg vil gøre lidt reklame for et PhD kursus jeg og mine kollegaer ved Klinisk Forskningsafdeling ved Hvidovre Hospital udbyder til April næste år.

Følg linket herunder:

https://study.ruc.dk/class/view/38664

Kurset har fokus på interdisciplinaritet i forskning i multisygdom og vil introducere forskellige perspektiver på multisygdom fra både kvalitative og kvantitative forskere.

Skriv gerne hvis i vil høre mere og anbefal meget gerne i jeres netværk :)

# data[].attributes.body
Det er med stor glæde, at vi inviterer jer til at deltage i et unikt to-dages innovationsarrangement omkring multimorbiditet, hvor vi vil samle de mest centrale aktører fra blandt andet sundhedsvæsenet, forskning, politik, teknologi, design og civilsamfund.

Udfordringen er klar: multimorbiditet er en af de største belastninger for vores sundhedsvæsen. Fragmenteret indsats, stigende kompleksitet og voksende forventninger kalder på nye løsninger, der kan bygge bro på tværs af sektorer og fagligheder.

I et forsøg på skabe bro mellem aktører afholder vi derfor et to-dages event der kombinerer principperne bag open-innovation summit og hackathon. Sammen forener disse formater top-down prioritering med bottom-up samskabelse og med et mål at munde ud i konkrete løsninger med potentiale for implementering.

I er udvalgt som nøgleinteressenter, hvis viden og perspektiv er afgørende for, at dette initiativ kan skabe reel forandring. Over de to dage vil du sammen med patienter, klinikere, forskere, beslutningstagere, designere, teknologer og innovatører:

Definere de mest presserende udfordringer i multimorbiditetsindsatsen.

Samskabe og prototype digitale, politiske og organisatoriske løsninger.

Skabe en køreplan for implementering, så idéerne ikke dør, men føres ud i virkeligheden.

Arrangementet finder sted over to dage d. 17 og 18 november 2025 på adressen AAU INNOVATE, Thomas Manns Vej 25, 9220 Aalborg. Programmet er ikke endeligt fastlagt men vil bl.a. inkludere korte oplæg fra nationale centrale aktører der belyser forskellige perspektiver omkring multimorbiditet, samt udenlandske oplægsholdere heriblandt Bruce Guthrie. Der vil være festlige og sociale indlæg begge dage, som skal sætte scenen for dette utraditionelle event.

Da hovedfokus er på open innovation og den videnskabelige proces, forventes der er komme et videnskabeligt output, som alle deltagere vil kunne deltage i. Ligeledes vil alt output deles med deltagere og omverdenen.

Deltagelse sker kun på invitation, og vi samler 20-30 særligt udvalgte deltagere fra hvert felt (i alt mellem 80-100). Kan du kun deltage I dele af programmet er det også helt ok. Ved interesse vil du få tilsendt et link med nærmere information.

I kan skrive jer op her også skal jeg nok lige opdatere med endeligt program: https://assets-eur.mkt.dynamics.com/79a833de-b94b-428b-8a1c-0e11478c693a/digitalassets/standalonefo…

# data[].attributes.headline
Hvad er der med de der multisygdomsclustre??!

# data[].attributes.subject
Hvad er der med de der multisygdomsclustre??!

# data[].attributes.body
Nikolaj holdt et spændende oplæg om multisygdomsclustre, deres dynamik, analyse af mortalitet i de forskellige grupper samt hvordan man skal tænke om de her lidt kunstige constructs som clustre er. Hvordan opstår clusteret? Hvordan definerer man hvor mange clustre det giver mening at rapportere og hvordan skifter personer fra ét cluster og videre til et andet eller tredje i gennem livet? Nikolaj er ved at lave et studie baseret på Stockmarr og Frølichs clusterstudie fra 2024 (doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302535) hvor han analysere hvordan personer flytter sig mellem clustre over tid. Det er super abstrakt og spændende, og derfor er vi heldige som får det præsenteret på en forståelig måde fra Nikolaj!

# data[].attributes.headline
Hvordan organiserer vi en fælles skriveproces?

# data[].attributes.subject
Hvordan organiserer vi en fælles skriveproces?

# data[].attributes.body
Det var en lille gruppe, der mødtes i dag: Jon, Andreas, Danny og Stine.

Danny holdt oplæg om fælles skriveprocesser. For nyligt er vi i INM blevet inviteret til at skrive et blogpost på International Multimorbidity Blog (Uni of Glasgow, School of Health and Wellbeing) om vores gruppe. Der er allerede startet et fælles google-doc og kommet nogle input til processen og indholdet. Danny har fået hjælp af AI til at udforme forskellige tilgange til at organisere en skriveopgave for en gruppe. Én tilgang kan være at sætte et bestemt tidsrum af (ex 1 time) og så sidde sammen og gøre det færdig som en skrivesprint. Én anden kan være en mere styret proces med præ-definerede roller (en editor, nogle section writers, nogle reviewers og til sidst proof readers) eller en tredje fremgangsmåde kan være en fælles brainstorming hvorefter man uddeler delopgaver.

Oplægget var gjort generisk og kan helt sikkert bruges til andre skriveprojekter, fx hvis vi i fremtiden beslutter os for at lave en artikel sammen.

Vi fik ide-genereret til det forestående blogpost og Andreas går videre med at lede den proces. Stay tuned :)

# data[].attributes.body
Ny deltager: Kristian. Phd-stud ved AAU. Har lige fået midler til at starte post.doc om multisygdom! Han vil afholde et forsker-event, hvor man i bedste workshop-mange-farvede-post-its-stil bringer kloge hoveder sammen for at brainstorme og udvikle de næste smarte interventioner i multisygdom. Vi glæder os!

Anne holder oplæg til diskussion og beder om feedback: HVORDAN BLIVER MIN WORKSHOP EN SUCCES? Hun skal nemlig også hoste en workshop, hvor hun bringer mange forskellige aktører i sundhedsvæsen sammen for at co-create løsninger til at forbedre behandling og forløb for mennesker med svær psykisk og samtidig somatisk sygdom. Hun vil anvende komplekse systemer tænkning som rammeværk for at få øje på løsningsmuligheder.

# data[].attributes.body
Tool for finding journals and APC-agreements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Det Kgl. Bibliotek | ChronosHub Journal Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
#Tear: Journal of Education, Science and Technology emerged in 2011 as a proposal by the research project

# data[].attributes.body
Friday, 26 June 2026 – Sommerafslutning

Sommerferie i netværket

Friday, 4 September 2026 – Johan Frederik Mebus Meyer Christensen

Friday, 18 September 2026 – Nikolaj Olerud Holm

Friday, 2 October 2026 – Sofie Wendelboe Jørgensen

Friday, 16 October 2026 – Andreas Kjær Stage

Friday, 30 October 2026 – Jon André Christensen

Friday, 13 November 2026 – Trine Herskind Hasløv

Friday, 27 November 2026 – Rikke Arndrup Arildsen

Friday, 11 December 2026 – Juleafslutning

# data[].attributes.body
Ny deltager: Rebecca. Phd studerende ved DTU. Arbejder med at omsætte sundhedsviden til praksis i kommunal setting.

Stine holder oplæg til diskussion om hvorvidt epidemiologiforskning i multisygdom bidrager til at forbedre behandling og forløb for patienter. Falder vi tit i "academic siloing"-fælden? Hvordan sikrer vi at studier som udforsker multisygdomsmønstre på populationsniveau får anvendelse i klinikken?

Gruppen diskuterede og nogle af overvejelserne gik på at der måske ikke kan fornemmes en 1:1 anvendelse af resultater fra epidemiologiske studier. Måske skal det anskues mere inkrementielt, over tid, som små bitte klodser der stables ovenpå hinanden og i sidste ende bidrager til at forbedre praksis. Desuden bør disse studier ses som støtte til mere patientnær udvikling: data-drevne populationsmønstre kan bruges til kliniker-dreven interventionsudvikling.

I sidste ende er det nok os selv - forskerne - der er arvtager af studiefund, og os selv der har ansvaret for at løfte det ind i en kontekst, en samfundsdebat og beslutningstagernes fokus - såfremt det giver mening.

Tak for diskussionen!

# data[].attributes.headline
Kan AI løfte samarbejdet på tværs af medicinske specialer? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Kan AI løfte samarbejdet på tværs af medicinske specialer? 

# data[].attributes.body
Her erfaringer fra det speciale, som måske har eksperimenteret mest med det, Radiologi. Spoiler: Challenges ahead!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Artificial intelligence and multidisciplinary team meetings; a communication challenge for radiologists’ sense of agency and position as spider in a web? - PubMed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AI implementation potentially transforms the existing professional and social positions of radiologists and other medical professionals in general which in multidisciplinary team meetings can hinder the intended use and benefit of the technology. We therefore recommend an increased focus on psycholo …

# data[].attributes.body
Ny deltager: Anne. Hun er læge og PhD studerende i Slagelse og arbejder med en tværfaglig tilgang til almen praksis og behandling af somatiske sygdomme hos mennesker med psykiatriske lidelser. Hendes tilgang er kvalitativ.

Danny holder oplæg om Explainable Artificial Intelligence og tager os igennem modeller til at forklare og forstå hvordan algoritmer kommer frem til sit output. Der er alt for lidt fokus på dette i forskning for nuværende, og vi har brug for at flere lægger energi i at forklare deres modeller og output for at øge transparency, interpretability og trust! Noget der gør sig ekstra gældende ved AI i sundhedsforskning.

# data[].attributes.headline
Journal of Multimorbidity and Comorbidity

# data[].attributes.subject
Journal of Multimorbidity and Comorbidity

# data[].attributes.body
Denne journal har en behagelig review proces med rigtig gode kommentarer fra reviewers på vores scoping review. Jeg vil varmt anbefale submissions hertil i alle afkroge af multisygdomsbegrebet - fra celle til samfund.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Journal of Multimorbidity and Comorbidity: Sage Journals

# data[].attributes.body
Hvad kan vi lære fra kompleks systemteori til at forklare så komplekst et fænomen som multisygdom? Det forsøger Sturmberg og kollegaer (2021) i denne artikel. De foreslår en vej frem til at sammenflette biopsykosociale faktorer, som i sidste ende kan lede til bedre integreret pleje og behandling for patienter med multisygdom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beyond multimorbidity: What can we learn from complexity science? - PubMed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Multimorbidity - the occurrence of two or more long-term conditions in an individual - is a major global concern, placing a huge burden on healthcare systems, physicians, and patients. It challenges the current biomedical paradigm, in particular conventional evidence-based medicine’s dominant focus …

# data[].attributes.body
Andreas, AC, Nikolaj, Jie, Danny og Stine mødtes virtuelt. Nikolaj holdt 15 min om "Labelling Clusters in multimorbidity". Cluster analyser er meget udbredt i multisygdomsforskning: hvilke sygdomme optræder ofte sammen og hvordan ser disse grupper ellers ud, er spørgsmål man prøver at belyse mhp at udvikle bedre behandlingstilbud til denne komplekse, heterogene gruppe. Nikolaj præsenterede hans tilgang til at navngive de clusters han finder i registerbaserede studier og understregede at det navn man finder på får en slags magt over hvordan resultaterne fortolkes. Derfor bør der ligge en velovervejet og tværfaglig (kliniknær) vurdering bag et clusternavn. Vi diskuterede os henimod at der måske mangler et decideret framework for hvordan man navngiver sygdomsclustre indenfor multisygdom. Måske som indeholder flere dimensioner end diagnoser, alder, køn etc...?

# data[].attributes.body
Multisygdomsgruppen i Glasgow laver strukturerede lister over multisygdomspublikationer hvert halvår. Hvis man hurtigt vil browse hvad der er kommet det sidste stk tid, så er den rigtig fin.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Contact us

To find out more about the International Research Community on Multimorbidity and to sign up for our mailing list for new updates, please email us.

Email: multimorbidityblog@glasgow.ac.uk

# data[].attributes.headline
International Symposium: Society, Nutrition and Chronic Disease Prevention: Time for a Paradigm Shift

# data[].attributes.subject
International Symposium: Society, Nutrition and Chronic Disease Prevention: Time for a Paradigm Shift

# data[].attributes.body
June 5-6 2025, Pozzilli, Isernia, Molise Region, Italy

Sidste år deltog jeg i EUPHAs Chronic Disease group's symposium om multisygdom i Paris. Det var superspændende og med high-profile forskere fra hele verden. Vi var kun 3 phd-stud i lokalet, og vi blev opfordret til at blande os meget mere i diskussionen.

# data[].attributes.body
The SELFIE framework for integrated care for multi-morbidity: Development and description - ScienceDirect

# data[].attributes.body
14. marts 2025 kl 10-11: Stine Bugge (15 min ved Nikolaj Holm)

28. marts 2025 kl 10-11: Andreas Stage (15 min ved Sanne Lundstrøm)

11. april 2025 kl 10-11: Stine Bugge (15 min ved Danny Anthonimuthu)

25. april 2025 kl 10-11: Stine/evt en anden (ingen 15 min, særlig dagsorden)

# data[].attributes.body
Netværket mødes virtuelt hver 2. uge i en time, hvor vi følger et nogenlunde fast mødeformat:

a) statusrunde

b) 15 fordybende minutter

c) fælles diskussion.

Vi skiftes til at være ordstyrer, hvilket inkluderer at forberede et kort oplæg til mødet, fx om et dilemma, nyhed, ide, resultat, eller tema.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fremtidig forskningsagenda indenfor multisygdom i almen praksis

# data[].attributes.subject
Fremtidig forskningsagenda indenfor multisygdom i almen praksis

# data[].attributes.body
Tjek denne artikel, som har lavet en consensus-proces for at belyse og prioritere ubesvarede forskningsspørgsmål (i almen praksis) indenfor multisygdom. Kan måske give inspiration til fremtidig forskning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Background Multiple long-term conditions (MLTC), also known as multimorbidity, has been identified as a priority research topic globally. Research priorities from the perspectives of patients and research funders have been described. Although most care for MLTC is delivered in primary care, the priorities of academic primary care have not been identified.

Aim To identify and prioritise the academic primary care research agenda for MLTC.

Design and setting This was a three-phase study with primary care MLTC researchers from the UK and other high-income countries.

Method The study consisted of: an open-ended survey question, a face-to-face workshop to elaborate questions with researchers from the UK and Ireland, and a two-round Delphi consensus survey with international multimorbidity researchers.

Results Twenty-five primary care researchers responded to the initial open-ended survey and generated 84 potential research questions. In the subsequent workshop discussion ( n = 18 participants), this list was reduced to 31 questions. The longlist of 31 research questions was included in round 1 of the Delphi; 27 of the 50 (54%) round 1 invitees and 24 of the 27 (89%) round 2 invitees took part in the Delphi. Ten questions reached final consensus. These questions focused broadly on addressing the complexity of the patient group with development of new models of care for multimorbidity, and methods and data development.

Conclusion These high-priority research questions offer funders and researchers a basis on which to build future grant calls and research plans. Addressing complexity in this research is needed to inform improvements in systems of care and for disease prevention.

Open-ended online survey

In early February 2022, each of the nine academic centres that make up England's National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research (SPCR) were invited to nominate up to three representatives to take part. Those invited already had experience of researching MLTC, which improved the efficiency of the input.

Participants were asked to answer the question, 'What are the big unanswered questions about MLTC (multimorbidity) in primary care that need to be addressed by the academic research community?' Responses were not limited in number per participant, but were anonymous except for a final self-reported question on institutional affiliation. Participants were also given the option to forward the survey to colleagues who might be interested, and, in this way, experts from other parts of the UK and Ireland joined the process. The initial questions were then grouped into three overarching topic areas by the authors to structure workshop discussions.

Workshop

The workshop was held face-to-face on 25 April 2022 in Manchester. Thirty-one researchers were invited, 20 (65%) of whom represented NIHR SPCR centres. It was held for 5.5 hours and was structured based on the topic areas identified from the open-ended survey. Each topic began with a short presentation from one of the project team. Then, the aim was to distil or expand the initial list of submitted questions through discussion, ordering, and rewording of printed copies. This shorter list of more clearly worded questions was the basis for the Delphi consensus study. The content of group discussions was captured with note-taking, as was the resulting prioritisation of the printed questions with any amendments made. The lead author summarised the discussion notes, and was checked for accuracy and representation of the discussions by three co-authors.

Delphi study

Guidance on conducting and reporting Delphi studies was followed. The Delphi panel consisted of the original workshop invitees plus a purposively selected group of other 'academic primary care researchers conducting MLTC research in high-income country settings', which were the broad inclusion criteria applied. Researchers known to the authors were approached. PubMed was searched and screened for relevant abstracts and first authors using keywords for MLTC, primary care, and high-income countries, and reference lists from selected international systematic reviews were screened (see Supplementary Information)., Finally, a call for volunteers was posted through the International Research Community on the Multimorbidity blog. In total, 50 participants were invited to the first round of the Delphi survey ( n = 34, the 31 original workshop invitees plus three additional researchers known to authors; n = 5 responses to the blog; n = 11 from the literature).

Participants were asked to rate the questions in terms of their priority for the academic research community over the next 5-10 years. Rating was carried out using a Likert scale of 1-9, where 1 = not a research priority and 9 = highest priority for research. Participants were briefed that research areas to be prioritised might involve either qualitative or quantitative methods (or both) in practice. The research areas might also vary from more fundamental to more applied, and more specific research questions to more broadly defined areas of research interest. Regardless, they were asked to rank in terms of their overall priority. Round 1 also had an option to add any comments on the questions, and a final section to add additional question suggestions.

After round 1, participants were sent a summary report showing the status of each question (see Supplementary Information). Consensus was calculated given prespecified criteria. A score of 7-9 indicated endorsement, while a score of 1-3 indicated rejection. Questions that over 70% of participants endorsed, and less than 20% rejected, were deemed to have reached consensus. Questions that less than 40% endorsed, or over 20% rejected, were removed from round 2. All other questions, plus new suggestions or rewording after discussion among the co-authors, were re-evaluated in round 2. All surveys were conducted using the Qualtrics platform.

This study received a letter of ethical exemption from the University of Manchester, since it focused on asking professionals questions strictly within their professional competence, and not of a personal, sensitive, or confidential nature.

Open-ended online survey

From the initial online survey, 84 questions were received from 25 responders at eight of the NIHR SPCR centres (84% of responders), plus four other institutions in the UK and Ireland. These questions were initially grouped into three topics for workshop discussions:

models of care (the largest area, subdivided into

research methods/data; and

outcomes (see Supplementary Information for full list).

Workshop

Eighteen participants attended the workshop, 78% ( n = 14) of whom were from NIHR SPCR centres. Discussion topics included the main differences between research on MLTC rather than single conditions, which participants felt were the complexity and variety of the patients encountered. This means there is less potential for standardisation of care, possibly requiring more flexibility and ownership for GPs and other clinicians to offer 'holistic' care. However, participants also recognised the likely trade-offs and paradigm shift of this type of care - for example, a possible move away from more guideline-based care, and potential knock-on effects for other system concerns such as waiting times (see Box 1 for further details of workshop discussions).

Following discussion of the printed research questions, including rankings by small groups within the workshop, an executive group of the authors finalised the wording for 31 research questions for further consideration.

Delphi study

Twenty-seven of the 50 invitees responded to the first Delphi survey (54% response rate). Participants included 10 (37%) males and 17 (63%) females from institutions based in the UK ( n = 20), Ireland ( n = 2), Canada ( n = 1), Denmark ( n = 1), France ( n = 1), Singapore ( n = 1), and the US ( n = 1), a similar breakdown to those invited (see Supplementary Information). Sixteen (59%) represented NIHR SPCR centres. Seven of the 31 survey questions met the criteria for consensus after round 1. Four were removed from round 2. Twenty questions remained uncertain and were re-evaluated (five of these were reworded in response to written feedback). Three additional research questions were suggested by participants and introduced. Therefore, twenty-three research questions were evaluated in round 2.

Round 2 of the survey received responses from 24 of the 27 invitees (89% follow-up rate). Three further questions met the criteria for consensus, making a total of 10 ( Table 1). An additional one question met the criteria for rejection. Nineteen questions remained uncertain (see Supplementary Information).

The final list of prioritised questions can broadly be grouped into two categories: questions relating to researching new and adapted models of care, and questions relating to methods and data. Those dealing with models of care tended to have a higher proportion of responders endorsing prioritisation.

Summary

A three-phase consensus study was conducted with academic primary care experts to identify priorities for MLTC research. Consensus was reached on 10 priority questions relating to development of new models of care for MLTC, and methods and data. These largely reflected the core theme of discussion in the workshop: the need to deal with the complexity of this patient group.

For models of care, priorities included both development and evaluation (of new models) and examination of implementation challenges. Priorities also included outcome measurement, such as a focus on experiential outcomes (patient-centred care and reducing treatment burden), and capturing upstream efforts for reducing negative outcomes (prevention of disease and functional decline or worsening quality of life). They reflected the complex challenge of re-orienting the wider health and care system. They also included, perhaps more immediately, challenges of adapting current models of care and skill mix, and identifying and addressing training needs of the primary care workforce.

For methods and data, priorities reflected the need for these models to adequately resource (through funding formulas) the complexity of management. There was an identified need for new (or linked) data beyond what is commonly collected within primary care, to better capture determinants of outcomes and prevention opportunities. Finally, opportunities were identified to expand use of quasi-experiments and other evaluation methods to explore what is ultimately effective, which could require new measures of relevant outcomes.

Strengths and limitations

The study used a three-stage approach to identify consensus research priorities of academic primary care. Limitations of this approach included the relatively small sample size and the modest response rate to the Delphi study. Nevertheless, the sample size is generally considered adequate for Delphi studies, where above 12 participants is likely to be subject to diminishing returns in terms of reliability. It was expected from the outset that the potential pool of researchers with expertise in the area would in any case be small overall. The follow-up rate in round 2 of the Delphi was high, so the sample was largely consistent between rounds. Another limitation is that responders were UK-centric, because of the funding and geographical location of the face-to-face workshop. Many of the UK participants were also affiliated with the NIHR SPCR, although this influence reduced over the phases (84% of open-ended survey responses, compared with 59% and 54% of round 1/2 Delphi responses). For all participants, researcher funding needs might have influenced responses. Nevertheless, the sample was expanded for the Delphi phase, and the final set of questions generated are likely to be relevant in many or most high-income countries. The final question set, however, does not necessarily represent all important issues in the topic area. There is an argument that creativity is what is needed, and new ideas will not necessarily reach consensus.

Comparison with existing literature

These findings complement previous MLTC priority setting work, such as the James Lind Alliance (JLA) from the perspective of older patients, recommendations and research priorities from the Academy of Medical Sciences (AMS), and the UK's NIHR strategic framework for MLTC. Areas of overlap and difference have been mapped in the Supplementary Information. Five of the 10 priority questions did not clearly overlap with any of the previous suggestions. Similarities shared across the findings and all these other exercises include a focus on prevention of disease onset (or further decline, priority number 4), and the need for a coordinated response to (integrated) care across the whole health and care system (priority number 5). The AMS priorities further overlapped in recognising a need for strategies to improve MLTC management (although not specifically in primary care, priority number 2). The NIHR priorities also overlapped with the need for patient-centred care pathways (priority number 3) and to augment outcome measures to those most relevant to patients (similar to priority number 10).

In contrast with the priority findings identified here, the JLA's priorities tended to emphasise specific outcome priorities for older patients (for example, social isolation, psychological wellbeing, independent living, and risk of falls), and specific intervention areas (for example, supporting carers, exercise therapy, and Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment). Arguably, several of these also emphasised a change to organisation of care to deliver the specific outcome or intervention. The AMS, on the other hand, had three priorities related specifically to clusters of conditions that did not come up in this exercise: trends and patterns (also reflected in the NIHR priorities), identifying clusters causing the greatest burden, and their determinants. Academic primary care researchers, particularly in this study's workshop, raised potential limitations with the clinical relevance and application of cluster studies. For example, it is questionable how clusters might inform any attempt to reduce secondary care costs, where a large number of co-occurring conditions each contribute to a very small fraction for MLTC patients.

Unlike these previous exercises, academic primary care researchers, understandably, also prioritised several methods and data questions. These addressed complexity and problems in adequately developing, evaluating, and implementing improved models of care, and being able to judge whether 'effectiveness' has been achieved (priorities 6, 8, and 9, which did not feature in previous exercises). Additionally, and perhaps reflecting the current pressures on healthcare systems, the specific emphasis on workforce skill mix and training (priority number 1), and resource allocation decisions (priority number 7) to support MLTC care have not featured previously. Ensuring these practical aspects receive attention is likely to be important for impact of research funding, policymakers, practitioners, and, ultimately, patient outcomes.

As outlined above, the priorities generated also differ quite substantially from the bulk of funded and published MLTC research to date. This perhaps also reflects the stage of the current MLTC evidence base, where the main gap is now application to build on the basic research already conducted.

Implications for research and practice

These priorities can offer funders and researchers a basis on which to build future grant calls and research plans. However, as raised in the workshop, the nature of the competitive scientific funding process might create challenges in obtaining support for novel, potentially groundbreaking, research in this area, as there might be a real or perceived higher level of risk. For example, there is the tension between allowing clinicians to recruit potentially eligible patients for interventions using the clinical expertise and judgement they apply in routine care, and concerns about selection bias or risks of using novel methods and data collection. Aligning research funding to the exploration of complexity might be the next frontier, and is likely to require context-specific solutions. Seeking to ignore complexity with traditional research methods that minimise variation in participants, intervention, implementation, and outcomes is no longer an option for improving systems of care or for disease prevention.

Funding

This study is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research for a workshop held in Manchester on 25 April 2022, 'Developing an updated agenda for Primary Care research on Multiple Long-Term Conditions (Multimorbidity)'. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Susan M Smith is supported through HRB Collaborative Doctoral Award in Multimorbidity, grant reference CDA-2013-003. Jonathan Stokes was additionally supported by an MRC Fellowship, grant reference MR/T027517/1. Peter Bower and Chris Salisbury are NIHR senior investigators.

Ethical approval

The authors received a letter of ethical exemption from the University of Manchester, since the study focused on asking professionals questions strictly within their professional competence and not of a personal, sensitive, or confidential nature.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have all received funding to conduct research on MLTC and are likely to seek further funding on this topic in future. They declare no other competing interests.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A primary care research agenda for multiple long-term conditions: a Delphi study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Background Multiple long-term conditions (MLTC), also known as multimorbidity, has been identified as a priority research topic globally. Research priorities from the perspectives of patients and research funders have been described. Although most care for MLTC is delivered in primary care, the priorities of academic primary care have not been identified.

# data[].attributes.body
RAWgraphs.io (God til visualiseringer som excel ikke kan lave og som efterfølgende kan optimeres visuelt i vector graphic editors såsom InkScape)

Colorbrewer2.org (God til at sammensætte en brugerjusteret farvepalette til visualiseringer - altså godt at optimere ift. farveblinde)

Datavizproject.com (God inspiration til datavisualisering)

# data[].attributes.body
Her er referat fra netværksmøde 11.04.24. Vi diskuterede og delte gode programmer og værktøjer til at "work smarter (and prettier) not harder" i forlængelse af Anne-Majs oplæg. I referatet finder I listen over de nævnte værktøjer.

# data[].attributes.body
Mange af vores projekter har et socialt eller organisatorisk aspekt. Her er et link til en lovende sommerskole netop om metoder til at indfange den slags:

https://www.usi.ch/en/education/lifelong-learning/summer-winter-school/ssm/workshops

# data[].attributes.headline
Her nogle konferencer jeg har bidt mærke i med hensyn til emnet organisering af sundhedstilbud

# data[].attributes.subject
Her nogle konferencer jeg har bidt mærke i med hensyn til emnet organisering af sundhedstilbud

# data[].attributes.body
1) International conference on integrated care (https://integratedcarefoundation.org/conference-pages/icic24-conference-themes)

2) Organizational Behavior in Health Care conference (http://shoc.org.uk/future-conferences/)

3) European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) (https://www.egos.org/)

4) International Conference on Sociology of Health and Illness (https://waset.org/sociology-of-health-and-illness-conference-in-june-2024-in-venice)

# data[].attributes.headline
Her nogle tidsskrifter jeg har bidt mærke i med hensyn til emnet organisering af sundhedstilbud

# data[].attributes.subject
Her nogle tidsskrifter jeg har bidt mærke i med hensyn til emnet organisering af sundhedstilbud

# data[].attributes.body
1) Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare

2)Journal of integrated care

3) Journal of Interprofessional Care

4) Social Science and Medicine

5) Journal of health organization and management

6) Health Care Management Review

7) Social theory & health

# data[].attributes.body
Jeg var meget overrasket over resultaterne i dette review af variationen i multimorbidity definitioner brugt i akademiske studier:

"Across studies, the number of diseases included in the definition of multimorbidity range from two to two hundred and eighty-five"

# data[].attributes.body
Jeg vil gerne anbefale denne review artikel, der belyser nogle af de praksisnære elementer ved interprofessionel collaboration