Fragilidade em idosos comunitários: comparando instrumentos de triagem

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Carneiro, Jair Almeida
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Souza, Andressa Samantha Oliveira, Maia, Luciana Colares, Costa, Fernanda Marques da, Moraes, Edgar Nunes de, Caldeira, Antônio Prates
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
eng
Título da fonte: Revista de Saúde Pública
Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/179940
Resumo: OBJECTIVE: To compare the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) and Clinical-Functional Vulnerability Index-20 (CFVI-20) instruments regarding degree of agreement and correlation and compare descriptive models with frailty-associated variables in community-dwelling older people in Brazil. METHODS: Cross-sectional study, nested in a population-based and household cohort. Baseline sampling was calculated based on a probabilistic approach by conglomerate in two stages. In the first stage, census tract was used as sampling unit. In the second, the number of households was defined according to the population density of individuals aged ≥ 60 years. The Kappa statistic evaluated the agreement between instruments and Pearson’s coefficient their correlation. Factors associated with frailty and high risk of clinical-functional vulnerability were identified by multiple analysis of Poisson regression with robust variance. RESULTS: Kappa statistics was 0.599 and Pearson’s correlation coefficient 0.755 (p < 0.001). The EFS found a 28.2% prevalence of frailty, and the CFVI-20 found a 19.5% prevalence of high risk of clinical-functional vulnerability. Age equal to or greater than 80 years, history of stroke, polypharmacy, negative self-perceived health, fall in the past 12 months, and hospitalization in the past 12 months were variables associated with frailty in both instruments after multiple analysis. Less than four years of education, osteoarticular disease, and weight loss were associated with frailty only by EFS, and having a caregiver was associated with a high risk of clinical-functional vulnerability only by CFVI-20. CONCLUSIONS: Although the analyses show moderate agreement and strong positive correlation between the instruments, the indicated prevalence of frailty is discrepant. Our results attest the need to standardize the instrument for assessing frailty in communitydwelling older people.
id USP-23_0e30344f495e32ac57c428a03b6e3c0c
oai_identifier_str oai:revistas.usp.br:article/179940
network_acronym_str USP-23
network_name_str Revista de Saúde Pública
repository_id_str
spelling Fragilidade em idosos comunitários: comparando instrumentos de triagemFrailty in community-dwelling older people: comparing screening instrumentsIdosoFragilidade, EpidemiologiaReprodutibilidade dos TestesFatores de RiscoInquéritos EpidemiológicosInstrumentaçãoAgedFrailty, EpidemiologyReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsHealth Surveys, InstrumentationOBJECTIVE: To compare the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) and Clinical-Functional Vulnerability Index-20 (CFVI-20) instruments regarding degree of agreement and correlation and compare descriptive models with frailty-associated variables in community-dwelling older people in Brazil. METHODS: Cross-sectional study, nested in a population-based and household cohort. Baseline sampling was calculated based on a probabilistic approach by conglomerate in two stages. In the first stage, census tract was used as sampling unit. In the second, the number of households was defined according to the population density of individuals aged ≥ 60 years. The Kappa statistic evaluated the agreement between instruments and Pearson’s coefficient their correlation. Factors associated with frailty and high risk of clinical-functional vulnerability were identified by multiple analysis of Poisson regression with robust variance. RESULTS: Kappa statistics was 0.599 and Pearson’s correlation coefficient 0.755 (p < 0.001). The EFS found a 28.2% prevalence of frailty, and the CFVI-20 found a 19.5% prevalence of high risk of clinical-functional vulnerability. Age equal to or greater than 80 years, history of stroke, polypharmacy, negative self-perceived health, fall in the past 12 months, and hospitalization in the past 12 months were variables associated with frailty in both instruments after multiple analysis. Less than four years of education, osteoarticular disease, and weight loss were associated with frailty only by EFS, and having a caregiver was associated with a high risk of clinical-functional vulnerability only by CFVI-20. CONCLUSIONS: Although the analyses show moderate agreement and strong positive correlation between the instruments, the indicated prevalence of frailty is discrepant. Our results attest the need to standardize the instrument for assessing frailty in communitydwelling older people.OBJETIVO: Comparar os instrumentos Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) e Índice de Vulnerabilidade Clínico-Funcional-20 (IVCF-20) quanto ao grau de concordância e de correlação, bem como comparar modelos descritivos com variáveis associadas à fragilidade em idosos brasileiros comunitários. MÉTODOS: Estudo transversal, aninhado a uma coorte de base populacional e domiciliar. A amostragem na linha de base foi probabilística, por conglomerados, em dois estágios. No primeiro, utilizou-se como unidade amostral o setor censitário. No segundo, definiu-se o número de domicílios segundo a densidade populacional de indivíduos com idade ≥ a 60 anos. A estatística Kappa analisou a concordância, e o coeficiente de Pearson avaliou a correlação entre os instrumentos. Os fatores associados à fragilidade e ao alto risco de vulnerabilidade clínicofuncional foram identificados por análise múltipla de regressão de Poisson com variância robusta. RESULTADOS: A estatística Kappa foi 0,599, e o coeficiente de correlação de Pearson foi de 0,755 (p < 0,001). A prevalência da fragilidade foi de 28,2% pela EFS, e a prevalência do alto risco de vulnerabilidade clínico-funcional foi de 19,5% pelo IVCF-20. As variáveis associadas à fragilidade, após análise múltipla, em ambos os instrumentos, foram: idade igual ou superior a 80 anos, histórico de acidente vascular encefálico, polifarmácia, autopercepção negativa de saúde, queda nos últimos 12 meses e internação nos últimos 12 meses. Escolaridade inferior a quatro anos, doença osteoarticular e perda de peso foram associadas a fragilidade apenas pela EFS, enquanto possuir cuidador esteve associado a alto risco de vulnerabilidade clínicofuncional somente pelo IVCF-20. CONCLUSÕES: Embora as análises revelem concordância moderada e forte correlação positiva entre os instrumentos, a prevalência de fragilidade apontada é discrepante. O resultado destaca a necessidade de padronizar o instrumento para aferir a fragilidade em idosos comunitários.Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Saúde Pública2020-12-15info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/pdftext/xmlhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/17994010.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002114Revista de Saúde Pública; Vol. 54 (2020); 119Revista de Saúde Pública; Vol. 54 (2020); 119Revista de Saúde Pública; v. 54 (2020); 1191518-87870034-8910reponame:Revista de Saúde Públicainstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPporenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/179940/166511https://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/179940/166512https://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/179940/166513Copyright (c) 2020 Revista de Saúde Públicahttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCarneiro, Jair AlmeidaSouza, Andressa Samantha OliveiraMaia, Luciana ColaresCosta, Fernanda Marques daMoraes, Edgar Nunes deCaldeira, Antônio Prates2020-12-15T05:33:10Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/179940Revistahttps://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/indexONGhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/oairevsp@org.usp.br||revsp1@usp.br1518-87870034-8910opendoar:2020-12-15T05:33:10Revista de Saúde Pública - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Fragilidade em idosos comunitários: comparando instrumentos de triagem
Frailty in community-dwelling older people: comparing screening instruments
title Fragilidade em idosos comunitários: comparando instrumentos de triagem
spellingShingle Fragilidade em idosos comunitários: comparando instrumentos de triagem
Carneiro, Jair Almeida
Idoso
Fragilidade, Epidemiologia
Reprodutibilidade dos Testes
Fatores de Risco
Inquéritos Epidemiológicos
Instrumentação
Aged
Frailty, Epidemiology
Reproducibility of Results
Risk Factors
Health Surveys, Instrumentation
title_short Fragilidade em idosos comunitários: comparando instrumentos de triagem
title_full Fragilidade em idosos comunitários: comparando instrumentos de triagem
title_fullStr Fragilidade em idosos comunitários: comparando instrumentos de triagem
title_full_unstemmed Fragilidade em idosos comunitários: comparando instrumentos de triagem
title_sort Fragilidade em idosos comunitários: comparando instrumentos de triagem
author Carneiro, Jair Almeida
author_facet Carneiro, Jair Almeida
Souza, Andressa Samantha Oliveira
Maia, Luciana Colares
Costa, Fernanda Marques da
Moraes, Edgar Nunes de
Caldeira, Antônio Prates
author_role author
author2 Souza, Andressa Samantha Oliveira
Maia, Luciana Colares
Costa, Fernanda Marques da
Moraes, Edgar Nunes de
Caldeira, Antônio Prates
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Carneiro, Jair Almeida
Souza, Andressa Samantha Oliveira
Maia, Luciana Colares
Costa, Fernanda Marques da
Moraes, Edgar Nunes de
Caldeira, Antônio Prates
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Idoso
Fragilidade, Epidemiologia
Reprodutibilidade dos Testes
Fatores de Risco
Inquéritos Epidemiológicos
Instrumentação
Aged
Frailty, Epidemiology
Reproducibility of Results
Risk Factors
Health Surveys, Instrumentation
topic Idoso
Fragilidade, Epidemiologia
Reprodutibilidade dos Testes
Fatores de Risco
Inquéritos Epidemiológicos
Instrumentação
Aged
Frailty, Epidemiology
Reproducibility of Results
Risk Factors
Health Surveys, Instrumentation
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) and Clinical-Functional Vulnerability Index-20 (CFVI-20) instruments regarding degree of agreement and correlation and compare descriptive models with frailty-associated variables in community-dwelling older people in Brazil. METHODS: Cross-sectional study, nested in a population-based and household cohort. Baseline sampling was calculated based on a probabilistic approach by conglomerate in two stages. In the first stage, census tract was used as sampling unit. In the second, the number of households was defined according to the population density of individuals aged ≥ 60 years. The Kappa statistic evaluated the agreement between instruments and Pearson’s coefficient their correlation. Factors associated with frailty and high risk of clinical-functional vulnerability were identified by multiple analysis of Poisson regression with robust variance. RESULTS: Kappa statistics was 0.599 and Pearson’s correlation coefficient 0.755 (p < 0.001). The EFS found a 28.2% prevalence of frailty, and the CFVI-20 found a 19.5% prevalence of high risk of clinical-functional vulnerability. Age equal to or greater than 80 years, history of stroke, polypharmacy, negative self-perceived health, fall in the past 12 months, and hospitalization in the past 12 months were variables associated with frailty in both instruments after multiple analysis. Less than four years of education, osteoarticular disease, and weight loss were associated with frailty only by EFS, and having a caregiver was associated with a high risk of clinical-functional vulnerability only by CFVI-20. CONCLUSIONS: Although the analyses show moderate agreement and strong positive correlation between the instruments, the indicated prevalence of frailty is discrepant. Our results attest the need to standardize the instrument for assessing frailty in communitydwelling older people.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-12-15
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/179940
10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002114
url https://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/179940
identifier_str_mv 10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002114
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
eng
language por
eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/179940/166511
https://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/179940/166512
https://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/179940/166513
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2020 Revista de Saúde Pública
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2020 Revista de Saúde Pública
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
text/xml
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Saúde Pública
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Saúde Pública
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista de Saúde Pública; Vol. 54 (2020); 119
Revista de Saúde Pública; Vol. 54 (2020); 119
Revista de Saúde Pública; v. 54 (2020); 119
1518-8787
0034-8910
reponame:Revista de Saúde Pública
instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron:USP
instname_str Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron_str USP
institution USP
reponame_str Revista de Saúde Pública
collection Revista de Saúde Pública
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista de Saúde Pública - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revsp@org.usp.br||revsp1@usp.br
_version_ 1800221801825959936