Linking Frailty Instruments to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: A Systematic Review

Azzopardi, Roberta Vella; Vermeiren, Sofie; Gorus, Ellen; Habbig, Ann-Katrin; Petrovic, Mirko; Noortgate, Nele Van Den; Vriendt, Patricia De; Bautmans, Ivan; Beyer, Ingo; Verté, Dominque; Donder, Liesbeth De; Kardol, Tinie; Rossi, Gina; Clarys, Peter; Scafoglieri, Aldo; Cattrysse, Eric; Hert, Paul De; Jansen, Bart

doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2016.07.023

Cited by 51 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The implications of frailty, both clinical and epidemiological, are considered to be the main interest . Although there is still no single definition, there is a general agreement that frailty is characterized by an increased vulnerability to stressors due to impairments in multiple and interrelated systems that lead to a decline in homeostatic reserve and resilience . This syndrome is related to mortality risk, and it is also an important predictor of disability, hospitalization, falls, loss of mobility and heart‐related diseases …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In these countries, people aged ≥60 years will be 23% of the total population . Considering this demographic challenge, the standardization of frailty identification is the first step in tackling the consequences of frailty …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Currently, identifying which frailty measurement is most suitable for clinicians and/or researchers is a subject of heated debate . A wide variety of instruments have been developed to recognize frail persons, among them, the Fried's frailty phenotype, Edmonton Frailty Scale, FRAIL Index or Tilburg Frailty Indicator, but there is still a lack of a gold standard frailty instrument . The frailty paradigm should be orientated towards optimization of the identification of people who require the preferential use of more specialized resources and a more comprehensive assessment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8 Considering this demographic challenge, the standardization of frailty identification is the first step in tackling the consequences of frailty. 2 Currently, identifying which frailty measurement is most suitable for clinicians and/or researchers is a subject of heated debate. 6 A wide variety of instruments have been developed to recognize frail persons, among them, the Fried's frailty phenotype, 9 Edmonton Frailty Scale, 10 FRAIL Index 11 or Tilburg Frailty Indicator, 12 but there is still a lack of a gold standard frailty instrument.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 A wide variety of instruments have been developed to recognize frail persons, among them, the Fried's frailty phenotype, 9 Edmonton Frailty Scale, 10 FRAIL Index 11 or Tilburg Frailty Indicator, 12 but there is still a lack of a gold standard frailty instrument. 2,6 The frailty paradigm should be orientated towards optimization of the identification of people who require the preferential use of more specialized resources and a more comprehensive assessment. To do that, simple, reliable and valid instruments to identify frail people, 13,14 which are also easy to use in the daily setting 13 and that assess frailty in its different dimensions, 15 are urgently required, given the multifactorial nature of the frailty approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Dimensions underlying frailty indicators in the Kihon Checklist

Sentandreu‐Mañó

Fernández

Iranzo

et al. 2019

Geriatrics Gerontology Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Frailty has become a current topic of debate in recent years among researchers as a key concept of clinical care in old age. One of the scales developed for its measurement is the Kihon Checklist (KCL). However, the dimensionality of the KCL has not been tested yet, and therefore the aim of the present study was to validate its dimensional structure. Methods This was a cross‐sectional study carried out between March and September 2018 in Valencia province (Spain). Participation in the study was voluntary. A total of 251 participants were sampled. They answered sociodemographic and medical indicators, as well as five frailty scales, including the KCL. Results Five confirmatory models with different dimensionalities were tested and none of them fit the data well. Therefore, all models were depurated. Goodness of fit indices showed that the best fitting model was a one‐factor solution, with 15 items. This reduced model had very good estimates of internal consistency and showed good levels of criterion‐related validity with four different measures of frailty. Conclusions This work constitutes the first study on the dimensionality of the KCL and the first validation of the Spanish version in a Spanish sample of community‐dwelling older adults. A translation exists into Spanish, but there are no data on the reliability and validity of the KCL for its use in Spanish‐speaking countries. The KCL, once depurated, offers a valid and reliable measure of frailty to be used in Spanish‐speaking populations. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2019; 19: 982–987.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Dimensions underlying frailty indicators in the Kihon Checklist

Sentandreu‐Mañó

Fernández

Iranzo

et al. 2019

Geriatrics Gerontology Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Review of frailty measurement of older people: Evaluation of the conceptualization, included domains, psychometric properties, and applicability

Huang

Lam

2021

Aging Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purposes of this review are to describe the existing research on frailty measurement of older people and to understand their characteristics, with a focus on conceptual definitions, psychometric properties, and diagnostic accuracies. We reviewed the published literature to explore if cross‐cultural studies of different types of frailty measurements have been conducted and to determine their applicability in the community setting. Narrative review with limited electronic database search and cross reference searching of included studies was performed. Studies published after year 2001 were searched for using MEDLINE and CINAHL Plus databases with keywords. A total of 5144 search results were obtained, but only 42 frailty measurements were identified in 68 studies. For the type, three different measurements were indicated, namely, self‐report instrument (n = 17), clinical observation assessment (n = 19), and mixed frailty assessment instrument (n = 6). Only 12 (29%) measurements examined reliability and validity. Nevertheless, over 35% did not perform any psychometric testing before applying. For diagnosis accuracies, 35 (83%) frailty measurements reported the cut‐off value(s) for determining level of the frailty. However, the sensitivity (56%‐89.5%) and specificity (52%‐91.3%) varied. The applicability was also diverse and some frailty instruments should be only used in some specific population and mode of administration. This review provides an overview of three major types of frailty measurements used in different settings with different purposes. For estimating the prevalence of frailty of older people in a community, the self‐report type may be appropriate. The psychometric properties of many reviewed instruments are reported insufficiently. The cut‐off value(s) are usually suggested with diverse sensitivity and specificity. Self‐report instruments, such as Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) and Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), are the most extensively examined in terms of satisfactory psychometric properties. Thus, GFI and TFI, with the current evidence, are recommended to be used in the community setting for frailty screening tools.

show abstract

Frailty and Primary Sarcopenia: A Review

Carmeli

2017

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing longevity, coupled with rising frailty and sarcopenia of aging, significantly affects function and quality of life of older adults. This review discusses the definition, assessment, and management of frailty and sarcopenia, and examines the relationship between them. Medline, Scopus and Psychoinfo databases were searched using the keywords frailty, sarcopenia, aging, and functional disability. The findings are that frailty and sarcopenia are often assessed clinically with such methods such as DeXA, CT scan, MRI, bioelectrical impedance, or anthropometry. Frailty and sarcopenia differentially affect older adults. Both conditions are characterized by decreased energy reserves and resistance to external and internal stressors, resulting in susceptibility to fatigue, comorbidity, sedentary life style, functional decline, hospitalization, quality of life, and even death. The estimated prevalence of frailty with sarcopenia is relatively low; however, the condition requires early detection and careful management.

show abstract

Linking Frailty Instruments to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: A Systematic Review

Cited by 51 publications

References 63 publications

Dimensions underlying frailty indicators in the Kihon Checklist

Dimensions underlying frailty indicators in the Kihon Checklist

Review of frailty measurement of older people: Evaluation of the conceptualization, included domains, psychometric properties, and applicability

Frailty and Primary Sarcopenia: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About