| Autor: |
Lapteva ES; I.I.Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University, 41 Kirochnaya str., St. Petersburg 193015, Russian Federation, e-mail: ekaterina.lapteva@szgmu.ru., Ariev AL; I.I.Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University, 41 Kirochnaya str., St. Petersburg 193015, Russian Federation, e-mail: ekaterina.lapteva@szgmu.ru., Tsutsunava MR; I.I.Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University, 41 Kirochnaya str., St. Petersburg 193015, Russian Federation, e-mail: ekaterina.lapteva@szgmu.ru., Arieva GT; I.I.Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University, 41 Kirochnaya str., St. Petersburg 193015, Russian Federation, e-mail: ekaterina.lapteva@szgmu.ru., Dyachkova-Gertseva DS; I.I.Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University, 41 Kirochnaya str., St. Petersburg 193015, Russian Federation, e-mail: ekaterina.lapteva@szgmu.ru. |
| Abstrakt: |
The review presents a literature analysis on controversial issues of the use of the terms polymorbidity, multimorbidity, comorbidity. Increasing publication activity on the topic of comorbidity/multimorbidity is noted. The main discussion is conducted in several areas: what term should be used - comorbidity, multimorbidity or polymorbidity; use or not use index indicators of comorbidity; if used, specifically for what purpose; what is the effectiveness of these indicators. It is concluded, that many issues have not yet been resolved and further research is needed on this issue. It is time to define terminology and specify WHERE and WHEN comorbidity/polymorbidity indexes are needed. |
