Although populations around the world are rapidly ageing, evidence that increasing longevity is being accompanied by an extended period of good health is scarce. A coherent and focused public health response that spans multiple sectors and stakeholders is urgently needed. To guide this global response, WHO has released the first World report on ageing and health, reviewing current knowledge and gaps and providing a public health framework for action. The report is built around a redefinition of healthy ageing that centres on the notion of functional ability: the combination of the intrinsic capacity of the individual, relevant environmental characteristics, and the interactions between the individual and these characteristics. This Health Policy highlights key findings and recommendations from the report.
BackgroundSarcopenia is increasingly recognized as a correlate of ageing and is associated with increased likelihood of adverse outcomes including falls, fractures, frailty and mortality. Several tools have been recommended to assess muscle mass, muscle strength and physical performance in clinical trials. Whilst these tools have proven to be accurate and reliable in investigational settings, many are not easily applied to daily practice.MethodsThis paper is based on literature reviews performed by members of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) working group on frailty and sarcopenia. Face-to-face meetings were afterwards organized for the whole group to make amendments and discuss further recommendations.ResultsThis paper proposes some user-friendly and inexpensive methods that can be used to assess sarcopenia in real-life settings. Healthcare providers, particularly in primary care, should consider an assessment of sarcopenia in individuals at increased risk; suggested tools for assessing risk include the Red Flag Method, the SARC-F questionnaire, the SMI method or different prediction equations. Management of sarcopenia should primarily be patient centered and involve the combination of both resistance and endurance based activity programmes with or without dietary interventions. Development of a number of pharmacological interventions is also in progress.ConclusionsAssessment of sarcopenia in individuals with risk factors, symptoms and/or conditions exposing them to the risk of disability will become particularly important in the near future.
Healthy ageing can be defined as "the process of developing and maintaining the functional ability that enables wellbeing in older age". Functional ability (i.e., the health-related attributes that enable people to be and to do what they have reason to value) is determined by intrinsic capacity (i.e., the composite of all the physical and mental capacities of an individual), the environment (i.e., all the factors in the extrinsic world that form the context of an individual's life), and the interactions between the two. This innovative model recently proposed by the World Health Organization has the potential to substantially modify the way in which clinical practice is currently conducted, shifting from disease-centered toward function-centered paradigms. By overcoming the multiple limitations affecting the construct of disease, this novel framework may allow the worldwide dissemination of a more proactive and function-based approach toward achieving optimal health status. In order to facilitate the translation of the current theoretical model into practice, it is important to identify the inner nature of its constituting constructs. In this article, we consider intrinsic capacity. Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework as background and taking into account available evidence, five domains (i.e., locomotion, vitality, cognition, psychological, sensory) are identified as pivotal for capturing the individual's intrinsic capacity (and therefore also reserves) and, through this, pave the way for its objective measurement.
It is well recognized that poor muscle function and poor physical performance are strong predictors of clinically relevant adverse events in older people. Given the large number of approaches to measure muscle function and physical performance, clinicians often struggle to choose a tool that is appropriate and validated for the population of older people they deal with. In this paper, an overview of different methods available and applicable in clinical settings is proposed. This paper is based on literature reviews performed by members of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) working group on frailty and sarcopenia. Face-to-face meetings were organized afterwards where the whole group could amend and discuss the recommendations further. Several characteristics should be considered when choosing a tool: (1) purpose of the assessment (intervention, screening, diagnosis); (2) patient characteristics (population, settings, functional ability, etc.); (3) psychometric properties of the tool (test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability, responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, etc.); (4) applicability of the tool in clinical settings (overall cost, time required for the examination, level of training, equipment, patient acceptance, etc.); (5) prognostic reliability for relevant clinical outcomes. Based on these criteria and the available evidence, the expert group advises the use of grip strength to measure muscle strength and the use of 4-m gait speed or the Short Physical Performance Battery test to measure physical performance in daily practice. The tools proposed are relevant for the assessment of muscle weakness and physical performance. Subjects with low values should receive additional diagnostic workups to achieve a full diagnosis of the underlying condition responsible (sarcopenia, frailty or other).
ObjectivesTo assess the validity of the WHO concept of intrinsic capacity in a longitudinal study of ageing; to identify whether this overall measure disaggregated into biologically plausible and clinically useful subdomains; and to assess whether total capacity predicted subsequent care dependence.DesignStructural equation modelling of biomarkers and self-reported measures in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing including exploratory factor analysis, exploratory bi-factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Longitudinal mediation and moderation analysis of incident care dependence.SettingsCommunity, United Kingdom.Participants2560 eligible participants aged over 60 years.Main outcome measuresActivities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL).ResultsOne general factor (intrinsic capacity) and five subfactors emerged: locomotor, cognitive; psychological; sensory; and ‘vitality’. This structure is consistent with biological theory and the model had a good fit for the data (χ2=71.2 (df=39)). The summary score of intrinsic capacity and specific subfactors showed good construct validity. In a causal path model examining incident loss of ADL and IADL, intrinsic capacity had a direct relationship with the outcome—root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.02 (90% CI 0.001 to 0.05) and RMSEA=0.008 (90% CI0.001 to 0.03) respectively—and was a strong mediator for the effect of age, sex, wealth and education. Multimorbidity had an independent direct relationship with incident loss of ADLs but not IADLs, and also operated through intrinsic capacity. More of the indirect effect of personal characteristics on incident loss of ADLs and IADLs was mediated by intrinsic capacity than multimorbidity.ConclusionsThe WHO construct of intrinsic capacity appears to provide valuable predictive information on an individual’s subsequent functioning, even after accounting for the number of multimorbidities. The proposed general factor and subdomain structure may contribute to a transformative paradigm for future research and clinical practice.
In most countries, a fundamental shift in the focus of clinical care for older people is needed. Instead of trying to manage numerous diseases and symptoms in a disjointed fashion, the emphasis should be on interventions that optimize older people’s physical and mental capacities over their life course and that enable them to do the things they value. This, in turn, requires a change in the way services are organized: there should be more integration within the health system and between health and social services. Existing organizational structures do not have to merge; rather, a wide array of service providers must work together in a more coordinated fashion. The evidence suggests that integrated health and social care for older people contributes to better health outcomes at a cost equivalent to usual care, thereby giving a better return on investment than more familiar ways of working. Moreover, older people can participate in, and contribute to, society for longer. Integration at the level of clinical care is especially important: older people should undergo comprehensive assessments with the goal of optimizing functional ability and care plans should be shared among all providers. At the health system level, integrated care requires: (i) supportive policy, plans and regulatory frameworks; (ii) workforce development; (iii) investment in information and communication technologies; and (iv) the use of pooled budgets, bundled payments and contractual incentives. However, action can be taken at all levels of health care from front-line providers through to senior leaders – everyone has a role to play.
ObjectiveThe World Health Organization (WHO) recently proposed an Integrated Care for Older People approach to guide health systems and services in better supporting functional ability of older people. A knowledge gap remains in the key elements of integrated care approaches used in health and social care delivery systems for older populations. The objective of this review was to identify and describe the key elements of integrated care models for elderly people reported in the literature.DesignReview of reviews using a systematic search method.MethodsA systematic search was performed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane database in June 2017. Reviews of interventions aimed at care integration at the clinical (micro), organisational/service (meso) or health system (macro) levels for people aged ≥60 years were included. Non-Cochrane reviews published before 2015 were excluded. Reviews were assessed for quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 1 tool.ResultsFifteen reviews (11 systematic reviews, of which six were Cochrane reviews) were included, representing 219 primary studies. Three reviews (20%) included only randomised controlled trials (RCT), while 10 reviews (65%) included both RCTs and non-RCTs. The region where the largest number of primary studies originated was North America (n=89, 47.6%), followed by Europe (n=60, 32.1%) and Oceania (n=31, 16.6%). Eleven (73%) reviews focused on clinical ‘micro’ and organisational ‘meso’ care integration strategies. The most commonly reported elements of integrated care models were multidisciplinary teams, comprehensive assessment and case management. Nurses, physiotherapists, general practitioners and social workers were the most commonly reported service providers. Methodological quality was variable (AMSTAR scores: 1–11). Seven (47%) reviews were scored as high quality (AMSTAR score ≥8).ConclusionEvidence of elements of integrated care for older people focuses particularly on micro clinical care integration processes, while there is a relative lack of information regarding the meso organisational and macro system-level care integration strategies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.