Key summary points
Aim
To (1) estimate the prevalence of (symptoms of) rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and (2) explore how (symptoms of) RMDs are identified and documented in studies among nursing home residents.
Findings
The prevalence of RMDs in nursing home residents varied to a great extent due to large heterogeneity in documentation of (symptoms of) RMDs.
Message
Establishing agreement on a useful and practical classification may ultimately increase identification of RMDs in the nursing home setting.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-024-01067-x.
Keywords: Nursing home, Rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, Prevalence
Abstract
Purpose
The objective of this systematic literature review was to: (1) estimate the prevalence of (symptoms of) rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and (2) explore how (symptoms of) RMDs are identified and documented in studies among nursing home residents.
Methods
Prevalence data of (symptoms of) RMDs in permanently admitted nursing home residents ≥ 60 years were included. Data extraction, data synthesis and risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. Included studies were categorized based on case ascertainment and case definition comprising: (location of) musculoskeletal pain, general terms for RMDs or a specific type of RMD. Results were summarized descriptively.
Results
Out of 6900 records, 53 studies were included. Case ascertainment comprised databases (n = 5), physical examination (n = 1), self-report questionnaires (n = 14), review of medical charts (n = 23) and self-report questionnaires combined with review of medical charts (n = 10). Prevalence ranged between 0.9 and 77.0% for (localized) musculoskeletal pain (n = 19) and between 0.6 and 67.5% for RMDs in general (n = 39). Prevalence rates of specific type of RMDs ranged between 0.7 and 47.5% for gout, between 3.3 and 11.0% for rheumatoid arthritis and between 2.8 and 75.4% for osteo-arthritis (n = 14). Heterogeneity with regard to documentation of (symptoms of) RMDs in medical data of nursing home residents was high.
Conclusion
The overall prevalence of (symptoms of) RMDs varied to a great extent. This was mainly due to large heterogeneity in documentation of (symptoms of) RMDs. Establishing agreement on a useful and practical classification may ultimately increase identification of RMDs in the nursing home setting.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-024-01067-x.
Introduction
Rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) are the most common cause of chronic pain and physical disability worldwide [1–4]. There are more than 200 RMDs that generally affect the joints, but also may affect muscles, tendons and internal organs [1, 2, 4]. RMD-related pain is usually associated with limitations in physical function and at times also with limited range of motion [1, 2]. In some RMDs, there are local signs of inflammation, such as joint swelling, redness and warmth in the affected areas [2, 4]. Osteo-arthritis, non-specific low back pain and pain due to previous fractures are common RMDs in community-dwelling older people [1, 3, 5, 6]. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) 10% of men and 20% of women over the age of 60 have symptomatic osteo-arthritis [5].
Both changes in symptom presentation and presence of co-morbidities in older people can pose diagnostic problems and contribute to both over- and undertreatment of RMDs. This is especially the case in nursing home residents [7–11]. Nursing home residents often have chronic somatic diseases or progressive dementia and need complex continuing care in multiple domains [12, 13]. Frequent co-morbidities of nursing home residents include cerebrovascular disease, other neurological diseases (e.g., Parkinson disease), malignancies and depression which all may be associated with (musculoskeletal) pain [10–12, 14, 15]. In addition, these concomitant diseases and cognitive impairment may ultimately mask, mimic or overshadow RMD-related symptoms in nursing home residents [7, 9, 16, 17].
Chronic pain in nursing home residents is associated with anxiety, depression, loneliness, social isolation and frequent falls [8, 9, 14]. On top of this, RMDs in older persons are characterized by a cycle of disuse and inactivity which leads to further reduction of function due to sarcopenia [5, 6, 8]. RMD-related symptoms such as pain and stiffness are often wrongly perceived by patients and health-care workers as being a normal consequence of aging [7, 9]. Early recognition and tailored treatment of RMDs may prevent further loss of mobility and increasing care dependency, improve quality of life and the quality of medical care of nursing home residents.
Insight into the prevalence of RMDs and RMD-related symptoms in nursing home residents is currently low. Studies that describe prevalence rates of (symptoms of) RMDs in nursing home residents are heterogeneous with regard to selection of patients, outcome (e.g., pain with or without description of anatomical location or type of RMD) and source of outcome (e.g., medical chart or database) [8, 14, 18]. A summary of the literature could help to provide insight in prevalence rates of (symptoms of) RMDs by organizing scattered information and identifying causes of clinical or methodological variation. The aim of this systematic literature review (SLR) was, therefore, to (1) estimate the prevalence of (symptoms of) RMDs in studies among nursing home residents and (2) explore how (symptoms of) RMDS are identified and documented.
Methods
This SLR was performed in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [19]. The protocol was registered at the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022310221).
Search strategy
The search was conducted in MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web of Science from date of inception to August 1st, 2024. We used a combination of free text words and controlled vocabulary terms (e.g., MeSH terms) in relation to RMDs, nursing home residents and prevalence or epidemiology. The detailed search strategy is outlined in Supplementary Material S1. The reference list of all included studies was hand-searched to identify additional studies of interest. Studies published in other languages than English, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch were excluded. Letters to the editor, case reports, reviews and editorials were also excluded.
Study selection
Studies were included if: (1) permanently admitted nursing home residents were the target population, (2) residents were 60 years and older, and (3) the study provided data on the epidemiology of RMDs. For the definition of nursing home residents, we used the stated consensus of the International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics (IAGG) and the American Medical Directors Association (AMDA) foundation [13]. Studies were excluded if they described a study population with: (1) exclusively acute traumatic fractures and musculoskeletal injuries, (2) exclusively osteoporosis or (3) short-term or short-stay nursing home residents, patients staying in geriatric rehabilitation care units or exclusively community-dwelling persons. A two-stage screening process was performed by two authors (SA and IK). First, title and abstracts were screened for eligibility. In the second step, the full-text articles of the selected titles were evaluated. Disagreements between the first two assessors were resolved through consensus or involvement of a third assessor (MO).
Data extraction
Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers using a standardized data extraction form. Any disagreement was resolved through consensus or by consulting a third reviewer (MO). Data extraction included: study identification (first author, publication year), study characteristics (study design, country, inclusion period, setting, inclusion criteria, sample size), patient characteristics (age, gender, reasons for nursing home admission, medical co-morbidities), prevalence data related to frequency, anatomical location of pain, type of RMDs and when available the criteria used to verify the diagnosis of the RMDs (case ascertainment).
Risk of bias assessment
The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers (SA and IK) using the critical appraisal tool for assessing the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS) [20]. Disagreements were resolved through consensus or involvement of an adjudicator (MO). The AXIS tool consists of a 20-item questionnaire with a dichotomic scale. Key areas in the AXIS tool include study design, sample size justification, target population, sampling frame, sample selection and measurement of validity and reliability. The scores were categorized into quartiles: > 15 AXIS criteria met (high quality), 10‐15 AXIS criteria met, 5‐9 AXIS criteria met, and ≤ 4 AXIS criteria met (low quality).
Data synthesis and analysis
Due to the large clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the included studies, we chose to summarize the results descriptively. First, studies were categorized based on case ascertainment, i.e., database study, performing a physical examination, self-reported diagnosis (or symptoms) and review of the medical chart. Second, studies were categorized based on case definition. The case definition was divided into three categories comprising (1) (location of) musculoskeletal pain (e.g., “pain in arm or back”), (2) general terms for RMDs (e.g., “arthritis”) or (3) a specific type of RMD (e.g., “osteo-arthritis”).
Results
Study selection
The literature search provided 6900 non-duplicated articles. After screening the titles and abstracts for eligibility, 118 studies remained for full paper review. For 12 studies, no full text could be retrieved. After full-text reading, 57 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria (17 articles described a wrong study population, 18 articles described wrong outcome measurements, and 22 articles were excluded for other reasons such as a case report) and 49 studies were included. An additional four studies were included after handsearching and checking reference lists (see Fig. 1) [9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 21–68].
Fig. 1.
PRISMA flow diagram of the literature search
Population and case ascertainment
Study characteristics
The 53 included studies were performed between 1989 and 2024 (see Table 1). Studies were mainly carried out in North America (n = 13; 24.5%), Europe (n = 15; 28.3%) and Australia (n = 6; 11.3%). The number of study participants ranged from 21 to 160,9000. Approximately, 62.9% (range 0–100%) of the study population was female. The mean age of the studied populations varied between 62.4 ± 13.9 and 88.4 ± 5.9 years with a mean across studies of 81.2 years (data of mean age available in 41 studies). All studies had a cross-sectional study design. Case ascertainment was based on large databases in five studies (9.4%) [45, 47, 48, 54, 62], performance of a physical examination in one study (1.9%) [50], self-report questionnaires in 14 studies (26.4%) [14, 25–28, 32, 38, 39, 44, 46, 49, 58, 61, 65] and review of medical charts in 23 studies (43.4%) [9, 15, 18, 21, 22, 24, 29–31, 34–37, 40–42, 51–53, 55, 63, 67, 68]. In ten studies (18.9%), the medical chart was reviewed in combination with a self-report questionnaire (see Table 2) [10, 23, 33, 43, 56, 57, 59, 60, 64, 66].
Table 1.
Characteristics of included studies
| Author, publication year | Country, n, case ascertainment | Mean age ± SD/range (years) | Mean woman (%) | Dementia (%) | Prevalence (location) of musculoskeletal pain (%) | Prevalence RMDs in general (%) | Prevalence specific type of RMD (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abell, 2004 [21] | USA, 1,609,000, review medical chart | NA | 81.2% | NA | NA | Arthritis; 19.0% | NA |
| Achterberg, 2007 [22] | The Netherlands, 562, review medical chart | 78.5 ± 10.5 | 64.6% | 47.3% |
Back; 12.3% Bone; 5.3% Thorax; 1.2% Head; 5.0% Pelvis; 2.3% Hip; 10.3% Joint; 11.4% Arms/ legs; 14.2% Soft tissue; 8.5% |
NA | OA; 13.3% |
| Alaba, 2009 [23] | Spain, 86, review medical chart and self-report questionnaire | 84.9 ± 8.1 | NA | 46.0% |
Shoulder; 7.5% Back; 37.7% Knees; 28.3% Feet; 16.9% |
NA | NA |
| Al-Momani, 2016 [24] | Jordan, 221, review medical chart | 62.4 ± 13.9 | 45.2% | 47.5% (cognitive impaired, advanced dementia excluded) | NA |
Arthritis; 9.5% Joint disease; 17.6% |
NA |
| Albertsen, 2021 [25] | Greenland, 244, self-report questionnaire | 77.0 | 62.3% | 29.5% | NA | Musculoskeletal disease; 25.8% | NA |
| Algameel, 2020 [26] | Egypt, 63, self-report questionnaire | NA | 66.6% | 0.0% | NA | Arthritis; 26.9% | NA |
| Altiparmak, 2011 [27] | Turkey, 106, self-report questionnaire | NA | 39.6% | 0.0% | NA | Musculoskeletal disorders; 2.8% | NA |
| Bekhet, 2014 [28] | USA, 314, self-report questionnaire | 83.0 | 79.6% | 0.0% | NA | Arthritis; 23.0% | NA |
| Black, 2006 [29] | USA, 123, review medical chart | 81.5 ± 7.1 | 55.3% | 100.0% (all advanced dementia) | NA |
Musculoskeletal disease; 61.0% Arthritis; 49.6% |
NA |
| Boerlage, 2008 [10] | The Netherlands, 157, review medical chart and self-report questionnaire | 88.0 | NA | 0.0% |
Legs; 32.0% Lower back: 27.0% Shoulders/ arms; 13.0% |
Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue; 35.1% | NA |
| Chen, 2023 [64] | China, 387, review medical chart and self- report questionnaire | 82.6 ± 7.4 | 47.8% | NA | NA | Orthopedic diseases; 27.9% | NA |
| Cook, 1998 [30] | Canada, 21, review medical chart | 77.6 | 61.9% | 0.0% | NA | Unspecified arthritis; 7.0% |
OA; 36.0% RA; 11.0% |
| D’Astolfo, 2006 [31] | Canada, 140, review medical chart | 83.7 | 69.3% | 96.4% |
Musculoskeletal pain; 40.0% Head; 6.0% Neck; 2.0% Back; 21.0% Extremity; 33.0% Unidentified; 38.0% |
NA | OA; 25.0% |
| Damian, 2004 [32] | Spain, 800, self-report questionnaire | 83.4 ± 7.3 | 75.0% | 44.8% | Joint pain; 40.0% | Arthritis and severe OA; 34.0% | NA |
| Decker, 2009 [33] | USA, 215, review medical chart and self-report questionnaire | 86.4 ± 7.3 | 75.8% | 51.6% | Musculoskeletal pain; 77.0% | Degenerative joint disease or osteo-arthritis or arthropathy; 66.5% | OA; 47.5% |
| Ferrell, 1990 [34] | USA, 92, review medical chart | 88.4 ± 5.9 | 83.0% | 37.0% (cognitive impaired, advanced dementia excluded) |
Low back; 40.0% Previous fractures; 14.0% Knee; 9.0% Shoulder; 8.0% Foot; 8.0% Hip; 6.0% Neck; 6.0% |
Arthritis; 45.0% | NA |
| Finne-Soveri, 2000 [35] | Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, 6487, review medical chart | 83.2 | 74.4% | 33.0% | Pain caused by arthritis; 38.6% | NA | NA |
| Fisher, 2002 [36] | USA, 57, review medical chart | 82.2 ± 8.0 | NA | 92.9% | NA | Musculoskeletal diseases; 38.6% | OA; 21.1% |
| Gill, 2022 [37] | Australia, 490,325, review medical chart | 8.4 ± 7.2 | NA | NA | NA |
Musculoskeletal conditions; 40.2% Arthritis; 36.5% |
NA |
| Gerber, 2016 [38] | South-Africa, 104, self-report questionnaire | 77.0 | 72.1% | 25.7% | NA | Joint disorders; 46.2% | NA |
| Grimby, 1999 [39] | Norway, 1800, self-report questionnaire | NA | 76.2% | NA |
Musculoskeletal pain; 64.8% Back; 35.3% Joints; 30.4% Shoulders; 43.1% |
NA | NA |
| Guccione, 1989 [40] | USA, 629, review medical chart | NA | NA | 45.4% | NA | Arthritis; 23.0% | NA |
| Hillen, 2017 [41] | Australia, 167,543, review medical chart | NA | 69.3% | 48.0% | NA |
Musculoskeletal condition; 19.4% Arthritis; 13.4% |
NA |
| Hsieh, 2021 [42] | Taiwan, 4119, review medical chart | 77.9 ± 13.2 | 52.5% | 98.1% | Low back pain; 6.6% |
Orthopedic disease; 7.4% Other musculoskeletal disorders; 9.7% Polymyalgia; 0.6% |
Gout; 0.7% |
| Jerez-Roig, 2016 [43] | Brazil, 144, review medical chart and self-report questionnaire | 79.4 ± 8.2 | 79.2% | 19.5% | NA | Rheumatic diseases; 11.8% | NA |
| Kalideen, 2022 [44] | South-Africa, 102, self-report questionnaire | 78.9 ± 8.1 | 74.5% | 8.8% (cognitive impaired, advanced dementia excluded) | NA | Arthritis; 38.2% | NA |
| Karmel, 2012 [45] | Australia, 33,300, database | 80.7 | 59.0% | 18.4% | NA |
Musculoskeletal disease; 12.6% Arthritis; 8.7% Other musculoskeletal disease; 2.0% |
NA |
| Laikhuram, 2024 [65] | India, 422, self-report questionnaire | 72.0 ± 6.5 | 77.9% | NA | NA | Musculoskeletal diseases; 17.1% | NA |
| Lapane, 2012 [46] | USA, 9952, self-report questionnaire | NA | 65.2% | 55.0% |
Back; 4.1% Joint; 4.4% Soft tissue; 1.7% Bone; 0.9% Other; 8.0% |
NA | NA |
| Lind, 2020 [47] | Australia, 9436, database | NA | 67.2% | 58.0% | NA | Arthritis; 60.7% | NA |
| Luque Ramos, 2017 [48] | Germany, 75,697, database | 83.9 ± 6.6 | 77.7% | NA | NA | NA | RA; 3.3% |
| Marques, 2015 [49] | Portugal, 329, self-report questionnaire | NA | 79.6% | 90.6% | NA | Osteo-articular problems; 22.2% | NA |
| Martinez, 2011 [50] | Spain, 171, physical examination | 81.3 | 100.0% | NA | NA | Foot conditions; 26.7% | NA |
| Monroe, 2011 [51] | USA, 92, review medical chart | 81.0 | 80.4% | 84.0% | NA | Degenerative joint disease; 57.6% | NA |
| Moore, 2012 [52] | USA, 11,788, review medical chart | 84.0 ± 8.0 | 74.5% | 51.0% | NA | Arthritis; 33% | NA |
| Myrenget, 2023 [66] | Norway, 262, review medical chart and self-report questionnaire | 88.0 | 71.8% | 28.2% |
Chronic primary musculoskeletal pain; 32.5% Chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain; 31.3% Pain from OA; 24.0% Secondary musculoskeletal pain from spine; 9.2% Musculoskeletal pain from inflammatory joint; 5.0% Secondary musculoskeletal pain from upper limb; 4.6% Cervicalgia; 3.8% Primary musculoskeletal pain from neck; 4.6% Pain in lower leg; 6.1% Pain in hip; 6.1% Primary musculoskeletal pain lower limb; 14.1% Primary musculoskeletal pain upper limb; 19.8% Non-specific shoulder pain; 16.0% Pain in thoracic spine; 4.2% Low back pain; 18.7% Nonspecific pain from back; 23.3% |
Impingement syndrome shoulder; 1.1% |
OA knee; 11.1% OA hip; 10.3% |
| Ng, 2020 [53] | Canada, 19,477, review medical chart | NA | 65.7% | 54.1% | NA | NA |
OA; 75.4% RA; 3.6% |
| Nguyen, 2020 [54] | Australia, 11,548, database | NA | 33.7% | 46.1% | NA | NA | Gout; 10.7% |
| Peng, 2009 [55] | Taiwan, 574, review medical chart | 80.9 ± 5.4 | 0.0% | 20.2% |
Lower back; 40.5% Bone; 5.2% Hip joint; 5.2% Joints; 29.4% Soft tissue; 5.2% |
NA | NA |
| Proctor, 2001 [56] | Canada, 3195, review medical chart and self-report questionnaire | 84.8 | 69.0% | 71.5% | NA | Arthritis; 16.1% | NA |
| v Rensbergen, 2010 [15] | Belgium, 691, review medical chart | 84.4 ± 8.3 | 78.0% | 24.2% | NA | Musculoskeletal disease; 14.0% | OA; 26.0% |
| Sawyer, 2007 [9] | USA, 26,110, review medical chart | 83.0 ± 7.9 | 75.1% | 49.7% | NA | Musculoskeletal diagnosis; 52.6% | NA |
| Sigurdardottir, 2018 [57] | Iceland, 5242, review medical chart and self-report questionnaire | 82.5 ± 8.4 | 58.4% | 25.5% | NA | Arthritis; 1.5% | NA |
| Takai, 2013 [58] | Japan, 5219, self-report questionnaire | NA | NA | NA | NA | Arthritis; 53.2% | NA |
| Tansug, 2021 [14] | Turkey, 73, self-report questionnaire | 75.9 ± 8.1 | 37.0% |
NA (Advanced dementia excluded) |
Musculoskeletal pain; 57.5% | NA | NA |
| Torvik, 2009 [59] | Norway, 214, review medical chart and self-report questionnaire | 86.0 ± 6.5 | 71.5% | 41.0% | NA | Myalgia and arthritis; 13.0% | NA |
| Tsai, 2004 [60] | Taiwan, 150, review medical chart and self-report questionnaire | 80.7 ± 7.4 | 58.7% |
3.3% (Advanced dementia excluded) |
Knee; 27.6% Lower back; 24.5% Hips; 18.4% |
NA | OA; 13.4% |
| Tse, 2004 [61] | China, 44, self-report questionnaire | NA | 84.1% | 0.0% |
Whole body; 18.2% Knee; 11.4% Ankle; 11.8% Back; 15.9% Legs; 15.9% Back and knee; 6.8% |
Musculoskeletal problems; 67.5% | NA |
| Veal, 2019 [62] | Australia, 382, database | 85.1 | 65.3% | NA |
Musculoskeletal pain, lower extremities; 50.0% Back or neck pain; 35.1% Musculoskeletal pain, upper extremities; 29.3% |
NA | NA |
| Vetrano, 2022 [67] | Italy, 4131, review medical chart | 84.3 ± 8.4 | 70.3% | 61.7% | NA | Other musculoskeletal disease; 5.6% | OA; 2.8% |
| Xie, 2023 [68] | China, 202, review medical chart | 79.1 ± 9.1 | 43.1% | NA | NA | Bone and joint disease; 13.3% | NA |
| Zanocchi, 2008 [63] | Italy, 105, review medical chart | 82.2 ± 9.0 | 70.5% | 100.0% |
Knee; 19.5% Hip; 16.5% Back; 11.5% |
Osteo-articular system problem; 57.1% | NA |
| Zarowitz, 2013 [18] | USA, 138,724, review medical chart | NA | 63.2% | NA |
Back; 14.7% Bone; 4.4% Hip; 6.3% Joint (other than hip); 20.6% |
NA | Gout; 1.8% |
RA rheumatoid arthritis, OA osteo-arthritis, NA not applicable
Table 2.
Summary of prevalence rates of included studies
| Case ascertainment (study design) | Number of studies (n) | Prevalence musculoskeletal pain (range; %) | Prevalence RMDs in general (range; %) | Prevalence specific type of RMD (range; %) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Databases | 5 | 31.8% (n = 1) | 2.0–60.7% (n = 2; median 10.7%) |
RA; 3.3% (n = 1) Gout; 10.7% (n = 1) |
| Physical examination | 1 | NA | 26.7% (n = 1) | NA |
| Self-report questionnaire | 14 | 0.9–64.8% (n = 5; median 19.2%) | 2.8–67.5% (n = 11; median 26.9%) | NA |
| Medical chart | 23 | 1.2–40.5% (n = 8; median 9.7%) | 0.6–61.0% (n = 18; median 26.0%) |
RA; 3.6–11.0% (n = 2) Gout; 0.7–1.8% (n = 2) OA; 3.6–75.4% (n = 6; median 28.6%) |
| Self-report questionnaire and medical chart | 10 | 7.5–77.0% (n = 5; median 24.0%) | 1.1–66.5% (n = 7; median 13.0%) | OA; 10.3–47.5% (n = 3; median 13.4%) |
Prevalence by case definition
Musculoskeletal pain in general or by anatomic location
Nineteen studies described an overall prevalence rate for the category (location of) musculoskeletal pain ranging between 0.9% [46] and 77.0% [33] with a median of 13.5%. Seven studies used a general term such as “musculoskeletal pain” without further defining where exactly the pain was localized (prevalence rate: 4.6–77.0%; median 36.3%) [14, 31–33, 35, 39, 66]. Three studies documented “joint pain” (prevalence: 40.0%), “musculoskeletal pain from inflammatory joint” (prevalence: 5.0%) or “pain caused by arthritis” (prevalence: 38.6%), without specifying cause or location of arthritis [32, 35, 66]. Fifteen studies described “pain in a body part or structure” with prevalence rates varying from 0.9% (“pain bone”) [46] to 43.1% (“pain shoulder”) [39] with a median of 11.8%.
One study used a database to generate a prevalence rate of musculoskeletal pain (upper extremities: 29.3%, back or neck pain: 35.1%, lower extremities: 50.0%) [62]. Five studies used a self-report questionnaire and found prevalence rates between 0.9% [46] and 64.8% [39]. Prevalence rates varying between 1.2% [22] and 40.5% [55] were found in studies that reviewed medical charts (eight studies). Five studies combined a review of the medical chart with a self-report questionnaire to obtain a prevalence rate (range: 3.8–77.0%) [33, 66].
RMDs in general
In this category, 39 studies were included in which the overall prevalence rates varied from 0.6% [42] to 67.5% [21] with a median of 23.0%. Heterogeneity with regard to documentation of (symptoms of) RMDs was high: as an example, 14 definitions were found to describe RMDs in general (e.g., “arthritis”,”musculoskeletal disease”, and”osteoarticular problems”). Two studies used a database and found a prevalence rate between 2.0% [45] and 60.7% [47]. There was one study in which a physical examination of the foot was performed, they found a prevalence rate for foot conditions of 26.7% [50]. A self-report questionnaire was used in 11 studies reporting prevalence rates between 2.8% [27] and 67.5% [61]. Most studies reviewed the medical chart and showed prevalence rates which ranged from 0.6% [42] to 61.0% [29] (18 studies). Seven studies used a combination of a review of the medical chart and a self-report questionnaire (range of prevalence rates: 1.1–66.5%) [57, 66].
Specific type of RMD
Fourteen studies described prevalence rates of a specific type of RMD (gout 0.7–10.7%; median 1.8%, rheumatoid arthritis 3.3–11.0%; median 3.6% and osteo-arthritis 2.8–75.4%; median 21.1%) [30, 42, 48, 53, 54, 67]. We found two database studies, one reporting the prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis being 3.3% [48] and the second reporting a prevalence for gout of 10.7% [54]. Nine studies used a review of the medical chart to obtain prevalence rates (gout 0.7–1.8%, rheumatoid arthritis 3.6–11.0% and osteo-arthritis 2.8–75.4%) [18, 30, 42, 53]. Three studies performed a review of the medical chart and a self-report questionnaire and found prevalence rates for osteo-arthritis varying from 10.3% [60] to 47.5% [33]. Ten (18.9%) studies included patients with dementia or cognitive impairment [21, 22, 31, 33, 36, 42, 53, 54, 66, 67]. There seemed to be no clear relationship between the prevalence of gout, rheumatoid arthritis and osteo-arthritis and dementia.
Assessment of bias
Supplementary Material S2 identifies that 26 (49.1%) of the studies reporting on RMDs met > 15 AXIS criteria and 27 studies met 10–15 criteria (50.9%). None of the studies was categorized into the two lowest AXIS risk of bias categories. The mean number of positive scores was 15 (range: 10–19 positive scores). Overall, the risk of bias was low to moderate, and negative scores were in most cases due to a lack of information about sample size justification and non-responders.
Discussion
In this review, the overall prevalence rates of (symptoms of) RMDs varied to a great extent (range: 0.6–77.0%). The combination of large heterogeneity in populations studied but even more in case definition and approaches to document (symptoms of) RMDs (case ascertainment) result in broad prevalence rates. Most studies used medical charts or self-report questionnaires to obtain prevalence rates without verification with a physical examination. As a result, data about the nature and severity of RMD-related symptoms such as movement restriction, stiffness or swollen joints are currently not available in nursing home residents.
An important explanation for the broad prevalence rates of (symptoms of) RMDs found in our review might be the lack of consistency with regard to case definition. For instance, 14 different definitions were found to describe RMDs, such as “arthritis”,”musculoskeletal disease” or”osteoarticular problems”. Although the methodological quality of the individual studies is moderate to good (AXIS criteria 10–15 or > 15), the unclear case definition among the studies makes it impossible to compare or to create any form of hierarchy in the obtained prevalence rates. Furthermore, most of the studies reporting on musculoskeletal pain only described pain in a certain body part or structure. Not only does the unclear case definition complicate the understanding of the prevalence of specific RMDs, but it is also likely that the causes of musculoskeletal pain in this population are still ill understood.
Also, differences in case ascertainment between studies might explain the broad prevalence rates. Studies that reviewed the medical charts of nursing home residents often used standardized data sets. These data sets only assess a limited set of medical conditions. As an example, the Aged Care Assessment Program (ACAP) has a maximum of ten International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) conditions that can be inserted. RMDs might not be prioritized in the selection of inserted ICD conditions leading to underreporting of RMDs.
Older people often underreport pain and other musculoskeletal symptoms, as these symptoms are seen as a normal part of aging [21]. Further, not all health-care workers are aware that nursing home residents may be in pain, especially in residents with cognitive impairment [10]. In studies among community-dwelling older people prevalence rates of self-reported RMDs are higher than in nursing home residents [37]. As this might be underreporting by nursing home residents, we found no clear differences in prevalence rates of (symptoms of) RMDs depending on the case ascertainment in this review. It is possible that there is underreporting in both self-report questionnaires and medical charts of nursing home residents.
In the study of Nguyen et al., it was found that nursing home residents with dementia had a slightly lower gout prevalence than residents without dementia [54]. Dementia has been reported to complicate the diagnosis of gout which can lead to underdiagnosing of gout in this population [54]. Husebo et al. previously reported on the importance of correct diagnosis and management of gout to reduce pain and potentially alleviate behavioral problems in older people with dementia [69]. Other studies have shown that gout is inversely correlated to dementia due to the potential neuroprotective effects of uric acid and the usage of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [70]. Although not a specific aim of our study, we found no unambiguous relationship between dementia and gout or other RMDs. The prevalence rates of rheumatoid arthritis (3.3–11.0%) appear to be high in this SLR compared to prevalence rates in community-dwelling elderly in Europe (0.2–0.4%) [71]. This is especially the case in the studies which include a self-report questionnaire. Perhaps a previous joint complaint or joint swelling was incorrectly attributed to rheumatoid arthritis by nursing home residents, health-care workers or informal caregivers.
A previously published systematic review by Smith et al. on musculoskeletal pain in nursing home residents included 24 studies and reported a prevalence rate of 30.2% [8]. This study reported additionally that musculoskeletal pain had a detrimental effect on quality of life of nursing home residents by restricting their mobility, social engagement and overall independence [8]. Higher dependence with activities of daily living has previously been shown to be associated with nursing home admission [12]. To our knowledge, there is currently no research about the nature and extent of symptoms of RMDs in nursing home residents. The only study that performed a physical examination aimed to focus on foot conditions but not on swollen and tender joints in general, range of motion or stiffness [50]. Further, the SLR of Smith et al. acknowledged that there is a lack of literature on strategies and interventions to address musculoskeletal pain in nursing home residents [8]. Improved diagnosis and management of RMDs in nursing home residents, in terms of providing appropriate pain relief, should be considered to improve quality of life.
Some limitations of the present study should be addressed. First, we cannot exclude language and availability bias because we applied language restrictions and not for all studies a full text could be obtained. Second, the majority of the studies were conducted in Europe and North America and geographical bias cannot be excluded. Socio-economic inequality and differences in receiving nursing home care could be responsible for heterogeneity in the prevalence of RMDs in nursing home residents. Third, due to large clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the included studies, we choose to describe the results narratively. No meta-analysis or creating hierarchy in prevalence rates could reliably be performed in this SLR which makes it difficult to compare the results of the smaller studies or to settle controversies of apparently conflicting RMD prevalence rates.
There are currently no studies in nursing home residents available that describe the results of a thorough physical examination of the complete musculoskeletal system. Studies that provide information on how nursing home residents themselves assess the severity of their joint complaints are also scarce. We recommend an observational study stratified by dementia (dementia as primary admission reason opposed to chronic illness as primary admission reason). The primary objective should be to investigate the prevalence of RMDs by performing a physical examination of the number of tender and (bony or synovial) swollen joints. To gain more insight into the impact of the joint complaints, information about the presence and severity of (joint) pain and of mobility limitations should be gathered. The findings of the physical examination should be compared with the diagnosis in the medical record to understand whether an accurate (differential) diagnosis for the joint complaints is recorded in the medical record.
Conclusion
The overall prevalence of (symptoms of) RMDs varied to a great extent due to the unclear documentation and classification of RMDs. This makes it difficult to define which specific condition is present or to clearly distinguish musculoskeletal pain from other causes of chronic pain in nursing home residents. Establishing agreement on a useful and practical classification to ultimately increase identification of RMDs in the nursing home setting is necessary to prevent misunderstandings between physicians and increase comparability and generalizability of (research) findings. Future research into the nature and severity of RMD-related symptoms in nursing home residents may also contribute to a better identification and classification of RMDs.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Authors contribution
Study concept and design: Shennah Austen, Annelies Boonen, Jos Schols and Marloes van Onna. Acquisition of data: Shennah Austen and Iris Kamps. Analysis and interpretation of data: Shennah Austen, Iris Kamps and Marloes van Onna. Drafting of the manuscript: Shennah Austen. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Shennah Austen, Iris Kamps, Annelies Boonen, Jos Schols and Marloes van Onna.
Funding
This research did not receive any funding from agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declarations
Conflict of interest
SA: None. IK: None. AB: consultancy fees from UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz and Galapagos. Research grants from Abbvie and Celgene. JS: None. MO: consultancy fees Novartis, Pfizer. Research grant from Pfizer.
Ethical approval and Informed consent
This study is a systematic literature review of existing publications. We have not collected any new data or examined patients ourselves. Therefore, no ethical approval or informed consent has been obtained.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Woolf AD, Pfleger B (2003) Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ 81(9):646–656 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ten facts about Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs). In: Rheumatology EAoAf, editor. www.eular.org: Accessed 22 July 2022.
- 3.Briggs AM, Cross MJ, Hoy DG et al (2016) Musculoskeletal health conditions represent a global threat to healthy aging: a report for the 2015 world health organization world report on ageing and health. Gerontologist 56(Suppl 2):S243–S255 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.van der Heijde D, Daikh DI, Betteridge N et al (2018) Common language description of the term rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (rmds) for use in communication with the lay public, healthcare providers, and other stakeholders endorsed by the european league against rheumatism (eular) and the american college of rheumatology (acr). Arthritis Rheumatol 70(6):826–831 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Minetto MA, Giannini A, McConnell R et al (2020) Common musculoskeletal disorders in the elderly: the star triad. J Clin Med 9(4):1216 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Lewis R, Gomez Alvarez CB, Rayman M et al (2019) Strategies for optimising musculoskeletal health in the 21(st) century. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 20(1):164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.van Lankveld W, Franssen M, Stenger A (2005) Gerontorheumatology: the challenge to meet health-care demands for the elderly with musculoskeletal conditions. Rheumatology (Oxford) 44(4):419–422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Smith TO, Purdy R, Latham SK et al (2016) The prevalence, impact and management of musculoskeletal disorders in older people living in care homes: a systematic review. Rheumatol Int 36(1):55–64 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Sawyer P, Lillis JP, Bodner EV et al (2007) Substantial daily pain among nursing home residents. J Am Med Dir Assoc 8(3):158–165 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Boerlage AA, van Dijk M, Stronks DL et al (2008) Pain prevalence and characteristics in three Dutch residential homes. Eur J Pain 12(7):910–916 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Smalbrugge M, Jongenelis LK, Pot AM et al (2007) Pain among nursing home patients in the Netherlands: prevalence, course, clinical correlates, recognition and analgesic treatment–an observational cohort study. BMC Geriatr 7:3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Schols JM, Crebolder HF, van Weel C (2004) Nursing home and nursing home physician: the Dutch experience. J Am Med Dir Assoc 5(3):207–212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Sanford AM, Orrell M, Tolson D et al (2015) An international definition for “nursing home.” J Am Med Dir Assoc 16(3):181–184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Tansug M, Kahraman T, Genc A (2021) Differences in pain characteristics and functional associations between nursing home residents and community-dwelling older adults: a cross-sectional study. Ann Geriatr Med Res 25(3):187–196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Van Rensbergen G, Nawrot T (2010) Medical conditions of nursing home admissions. BMC Geriatr 10:46 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Leong IY, Nuo TH (2007) Prevalence of pain in nursing home residents with different cognitive and communicative abilities. Clin J Pain 23(2):119–127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Wagatsuma S, Yamaguchi T, Berge LI et al (2021) How, why and where it hurts-breaking down pain syndrome among nursing home patients with dementia: a cross-sectional analysis of the cosmos trial. Pain Manag Nurs 22(3):319–326 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Zarowitz BJ, O’Shea TE (2013) Demographic and clinical profile of nursing facility residents with gout. Consult Pharm 28(6):370–382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Downes MJ, Brennan ML, Williams HC et al (2016) Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open 6(12):e011458 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Abell JE, Hootman JM, Helmick CG (2004) Prevalence and impact of arthritis among nursing home residents. Ann Rheum Dis 63(5):591–594 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Achterberg WP, Pot AM, Scherder EJ et al (2007) Pain in the nursing home: assessment and treatment on different types of care wards. J Pain Symptom Manage 34(5):480–487 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Alaba J, Arriola E (2009) Pain prevalence among the elderly in care homes. Spanish. Revista de la Sociedad Espanola del Dolor 16(6):344–351 [Google Scholar]
- 24.Al-Momani M, Al-Momani F, Alghadir AH et al (2016) Factors related to gait and balance deficits in older adults. Clin Interv Aging 11:1043–1049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Albertsen N, Olsen TM, Sommer TG et al (2021) Who lives in care homes in Greenland? A nationwide survey of demographics, functional level, medication use and comorbidities. BMC Geriatr 21(1):500 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Algameel M (2020) Patterns of medication use and adherence to medications among residents in the elderly homes. Pak J Med Sci 36(4):729–734 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Altiparmak S, Altiparmak O (2012) Drug-using behaviors of the elderly living in nursing homes and community-dwellings in Manisa. Turkey Arch Gerontol Geriatr 54(2):e242–e248 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Bekhet AK, Zauszniewski JA (2014) Chronic conditions in elders in assisted living facilities: associations with daily functioning, self-assessed health, and depressive symptoms. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 28(6):399–404 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Black BS, Finucane T, Baker A et al (2006) Health problems and correlates of pain in nursing home residents with advanced dementia. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 20(4):283–290 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Cook AJ (1998) Cognitive-behavioral pain management for elderly nursing home residents. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 53(1):P51–P59 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.D’Astolfo CJ, Humphreys BK (2006) A record review of reported musculoskeletal pain in an Ontario long term care facility. BMC Geriatr 6:5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Damian J, Valderrama-Gama E, Rodriguez-Artalejo F et al (2004) Health and functional status among elderly individuals living in nursing homes in Madrid. Spanish Gaceta sanitaria/SESPAS 18(4):268–274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Decker SA, Culp KR, Cacchione PZ (2009) Evaluation of musculoskeletal pain management practices in rural nursing homes compared with evidence-based criteria. Pain Manag Nurs 10(2):58–64 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Ferrell BA, Ferrell BR, Osterweil D (1990) Pain in the nursing home. J Am Geriatr Soc 38(4):409–414 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Finne-Soveri UH, Ljunggren G, Schroll M et al (2000) Pain and its association with disability in institutional long-term care in four Nordic countries. Can J Aging 19(SUPPL. 2):38–49 [Google Scholar]
- 36.Fisher SE, Burgio LD, Thorn BE et al (2002) Pain assessment and management in cognitively impaired nursing home residents: association of certified nursing assistant pain report, Minimum Data Set pain report, and analgesic medication use. J Am Geriatr Soc 50(1):152–156 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Gill TK, Caughey GE, Wesselingh S et al (2022) Impact of musculoskeletal conditions among those in residential aged care in Australia. Australas J Ageing 41(1):e41–e49 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Gerber AM, Botes R, Mostert A et al (2016) A cohort study of elderly people in Bloemfontein, South Africa, to determine health-related quality of life and functional abilities. S Afr Med J 106(3):298–301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Grimby C, Fastbom J, Forsell Y et al (1999) Musculoskeletal pain and analgesic therapy in a very old population. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 29(1):29–43 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Guccione AA, Meenan RF, Anderson JJ (1989) Arthritis in nursing home residents A validation of its prevalence and examination of its impact on institutionalization and functional status. Arthritis Rheum 32(12):1546–1553 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Hillen JB, Vitry A, Caughey GE (2017) Disease burden, comorbidity and geriatric syndromes in the Australian aged care population. Australas J Ageing 36(2):E14–E19 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Hsieh SW, Huang LC, Hsieh TJ et al (2021) Behavioral and psychological symptoms in institutional residents with dementia in Taiwan. Geriatr Gerontol Int 21(8):718–724 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Jerez-Roig J, Souza DL, Andrade FL et al (2016) Self-perceived health in institutionalized elderly. Cien Saude Colet 21(11):3367–3375 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Kalideen L, Van Wyk JM, Govender P (2022) Demographic and clinical profiles of residents in long-term care facilities in South Africa: A cross-sectional survey. Afr J Primary Health Care Family Med 14(1):e1–e9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Karmel R, Gibson D, Anderson P et al (2012) Care trajectories through community and residential aged care services: disease effects. Ageing Soc 32:1428–1445 [Google Scholar]
- 46.Lapane KL, Quilliam BJ, Chow W et al (2012) The association between pain and measures of well-being among nursing home residents. J Am Med Dir Assoc 13(4):344–349 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Lind KE, Raban MZ, Brett L et al (2020) Measuring the prevalence of 60 health conditions in older Australians in residential aged care with electronic health records: A retrospective dynamic cohort study. Popul Health Metrics. 10.1186/s12963-020-00234-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Luque Ramos A, Albrecht K, Zink A et al (2017) Rheumatologic care of nursing home residents with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of the year before and after nursing home admission. Rheumatol Int 37(12):2059–2064 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Marques A, Rocha V, Pinto M et al (2015) Comorbidities and medication intake among people with dementia living in long-term care facilities. Revista Portuguesa de Saude Publica 33(1):42–48 [Google Scholar]
- 50.Martínez-Gallardo Prieto L, Hermida Galindo LF (2012) Prevalence of foot conditions in a geriatric population and their impact on mobility, gait and tendency to falls. Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol 47(1):19–22 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Monroe T, Carter M, Parish A (2011) A case study using the beers list criteria to compare prescribing by family practitioners and geriatric specialists in a rural nursing home. Geriatr Nurs 32(5):350–356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Moore KL, Boscardin WJ, Steinman MA et al (2012) Age and sex variation in prevalence of chronic medical conditions in older residents of U.S. nursing homes. J Am Geriatr Soc 60(4):756–764 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Ng R, Lane N, Tanuseputro P et al (2020) Increasing complexity of new nursing home residents in Ontario, Canada: a serial cross-sectional study. J Am Geriatr Soc 68(6):1293–1300 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Nguyen AD, Lind KE, Day RO et al (2020) A profile of health status and demographics of aged care facility residents with gout. Austr J Ageing 39(1):e153–e161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Peng LN, Lin MH, Lai HY et al (2009) Pain and health-care utilization among older men in a veterans care home. Archiv Gerontol Geriatr 49:S13–S16 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Proctor WR, Hirdes JP (2001) Pain and cognitive status among nursing home residents in Canada. Pain Res Manage 6(3):119–125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Sigurdardottir AK, Olafsson K, Arnardottir RH et al (2018) Health status and functional profile at admission to nursing homes a population based study over the years 2003–2014: Comparison between people with and without diabetes. J Gerontol Geriatr 66(3):134–141 [Google Scholar]
- 58.Takai Y, Yamamoto-Mitani N, Fukahori H et al (2013) Nursing ward managers’ perceptions of pain prevalence at the aged-care facilities in Japan: a nationwide survey. Pain Manag Nurs 14(3):e59-66 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Torvik K, Kaasa S, Kirkevold O et al (2010) Pain and quality of life among residents of Norwegian nursing homes. Pain Manag Nurs 11(1):35–44 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Tsai YF, Tsai HH, Lai YH et al (2004) Pain prevalence, experiences and management strategies among the elderly in taiwanese nursing homes. J Pain Symptom Manage 28(6):579–584 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Tse MMY, Pun SPY, Benzie IFF (2005) Pain relief strategies used by older people with chronic pain: An exploratory survey for planning patient-centred intervention. J Clin Nurs 14(3):315–320 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Veal F, Williams M, Bereznicki L et al (2019) A retrospective review of pain management in Tasmanian residential aged care facilities. BJGP Open. 10.3399/bjgpopen18X101629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Zanocchi M, Maero B, Nicola E et al (2008) Chronic pain in a sample of nursing home residents: prevalence, characteristics, influence on quality of life (QoL). Arch Gerontol Geriatr 47(1):121–128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Chen HL, Yu XH, Yin YH et al (2023) Multimorbidity patterns and the association with health status of the oldest-old in long-term care facilities in China: a two-step analysis. BMC Geriatr 23:851–867 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Laikhuram P, Devi HS (2024) Quality of life and morbidity pattern among inmates of old age homes in Valley Districts of Manipur: a cross-sectional study. Indian J Public Health Res Dev. 15(3):324–331 [Google Scholar]
- 66.Myrenget ME, Borchgrevink PC, Rustoen T et al (2023) Chronic pain conditions and use of analgesics among nursing home patients with dementia. Pain 164(5):1002–1011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Vetrano DL, Damiano C, Tazzeo C et al (2022) Multimorbidity Patterns and 5-Year Mortality in Institutionalized Older Adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc 23(8):1389–1395 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Xie F, Shu Q, Chen ZJ (2023) An exploration of status of chronic diseases and its influencing factors of older people in Chinese home care and long-term care facilities: a cross-sectional study. Front Public Health 11:1321681 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Husebo BS, Ballard C, Sandvik R et al (2011) Efficacy of treating pain to reduce behavioural disturbances in residents of nursing homes with dementia: cluster randomised clinical trial. BMJ 343:d4065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Hong JY, Lan TY, Tang GJ et al (2015) Gout and the risk of dementia: a nationwide population-based cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther 17(1):139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Finckh A, Gilbert B, Hodkinson B et al (2022) Global epidemiology of rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol 18(10):591–602 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.