Screening for frailty in older adults using a self-reported instrument
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2015 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng por |
Título da fonte: | Revista de Saúde Pública |
Texto Completo: | https://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/130417 |
Resumo: | OBJECTIVE To validate a screening instrument using self-reported assessment of frailty syndrome in older adults.METHODS This cross-sectional study used data from the Saúde, Bem-estar e Envelhecimento study conducted in Sao Paulo, SP, Southeastern Brazil. The sample consisted of 433 older adult individuals (≥ 75 years) assessed in 2009. The self-reported instrument can be applied to older adults or their proxy respondents and consists of dichotomous questions directly related to each component of the frailty phenotype, which is considered the gold standard model: unintentional weight loss, fatigue, low physical activity, decreased physical strength, and decreased walking speed. The same classification proposed in the phenotype was utilized: not frail (no component identified); pre-frail (presence of one or two components), and frail (presence of three or more components). Because this is a screening instrument, “process of frailty” was included as a category (pre-frail and frail). Cronbach’s α was used in psychometric analysis to evaluate the reliability and validity of the criterion, the sensitivity, the specificity, as well as positive and negative predictive values. Factor analysis was used to assess the suitability of the proposed number of components.RESULTS Decreased walking speed and decreased physical strength showed good internal consistency (α = 0.77 and 0.72, respectively); however, low physical activity was less satisfactory (α = 0.63). The sensitivity and specificity for identifying pre-frail individuals were 89.7% and 24.3%, respectively, while those for identifying frail individuals were 63.2% and 71.6%, respectively. In addition, 89.7% of the individuals from both the evaluations were identified in the “process of frailty” category.CONCLUSIONS The self-reported assessment of frailty can identify the syndrome among older adults and can be used as a screening tool. Its advantages include simplicity, rapidity, low cost, and ability to be used by different professionals. |
id |
USP-23_67b7cf9abdffdc0a94f71600c6d53b28 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:revistas.usp.br:article/130417 |
network_acronym_str |
USP-23 |
network_name_str |
Revista de Saúde Pública |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Screening for frailty in older adults using a self-reported instrumentRastreamento de fragilidade em idosos por instrumento autorreferidoAgedFrail ElderlyPhysical FitnessMotor ActivityDiagnostic Self EvaluationQuestionnairesutilizationValidation StudiesIdosoIdoso FragilizadoAptidão FísicaAtividade MotoraAutoavaliação DiagnósticaQuestionáriosutilizaçãoEstudos de ValidaçãoOBJECTIVE To validate a screening instrument using self-reported assessment of frailty syndrome in older adults.METHODS This cross-sectional study used data from the Saúde, Bem-estar e Envelhecimento study conducted in Sao Paulo, SP, Southeastern Brazil. The sample consisted of 433 older adult individuals (≥ 75 years) assessed in 2009. The self-reported instrument can be applied to older adults or their proxy respondents and consists of dichotomous questions directly related to each component of the frailty phenotype, which is considered the gold standard model: unintentional weight loss, fatigue, low physical activity, decreased physical strength, and decreased walking speed. The same classification proposed in the phenotype was utilized: not frail (no component identified); pre-frail (presence of one or two components), and frail (presence of three or more components). Because this is a screening instrument, “process of frailty” was included as a category (pre-frail and frail). Cronbach’s α was used in psychometric analysis to evaluate the reliability and validity of the criterion, the sensitivity, the specificity, as well as positive and negative predictive values. Factor analysis was used to assess the suitability of the proposed number of components.RESULTS Decreased walking speed and decreased physical strength showed good internal consistency (α = 0.77 and 0.72, respectively); however, low physical activity was less satisfactory (α = 0.63). The sensitivity and specificity for identifying pre-frail individuals were 89.7% and 24.3%, respectively, while those for identifying frail individuals were 63.2% and 71.6%, respectively. In addition, 89.7% of the individuals from both the evaluations were identified in the “process of frailty” category.CONCLUSIONS The self-reported assessment of frailty can identify the syndrome among older adults and can be used as a screening tool. Its advantages include simplicity, rapidity, low cost, and ability to be used by different professionals.OBJETIVO Validar instrumento de rastreamento por avaliação autorreferida da síndrome de fragilidade entre idosos.MÉTODOS Estudo transversal com dados do estudo Saúde, Bem-estar e Envelhecimento, realizado em São Paulo, SP. A amostra probabilística foi constituída por 433 idosos (idade ≥ 75 anos) avaliados em 2009. O instrumento autorreferido utilizado pode ser aplicado a idosos ou proxi-informantes e foi composto por questões dicotômicas relacionadas diretamente a cada componente do fenótipo de fragilidade considerado padrão-ouro: perda de peso não intencional, fadiga, baixa atividade física, redução de força e de velocidade de marcha. Manteve-se a classificação proposta no fenótipo: não frágil (nenhum componente identificado); pré-frágil (presença de um ou dois componentes) e frágil (presença de três ou mais componentes). Por tratar-se de instrumento de rastreamento, incluiu-se a categoria processo de fragilização (pré-frágil e frágil). Utilizou-se o coeficiente α de Cronbach na análise psicométrica para avaliar confiabilidade e validade de critério, sensibilidade, especificidade e valores preditivos positivo e negativo. Para verificar a adequação do número de componentes propostos, utilizou-se a análise fatorial.RESULTADOS Os componentes “redução de velocidade de caminhada” e “redução de força” apresentaram boa consistência interna (α = 0,77 e α = 0,72, respectivamente) e a “baixa atividade física” (α = 0,63) foi um pouco menos satisfatória. A sensibilidade e a especificidade para identificação dos pré-frágeis foram de 89,7% e 24,3% e dos frágeis, 63,2% e 71,6%, respectivamente. A categoria “processo de fragilização” identificou, igualmente, 89,7% das pessoas em ambas as avaliações.CONCLUSÕES O instrumento de avaliação de fragilidade autorreferida é capaz de identificar a síndrome entre as pessoas idosas, podendo ser utilizado como instrumento de rastreamento, tendo como vantagens ser simples, rápido, de baixo custo e aplicável por diferentes profissionais.Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Saúde Pública2015-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/13041710.1590/S0034-8910.2015049005516Revista de Saúde Pública; Vol. 49 (2015); 2Revista de Saúde Pública; Vol. 49 (2015); 2Revista de Saúde Pública; v. 49 (2015); 21518-87870034-8910reponame:Revista de Saúde Públicainstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPengporhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/130417/126800https://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/130417/126801Copyright (c) 2017 Revista de Saúde Públicainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessNunes, Daniella PiresDuarte, Yeda Aparecida de OliveiraSantos, Jair Lício FerreiraLebrão, Maria Lúcia2017-09-27T11:03:35Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/130417Revistahttps://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/indexONGhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/oairevsp@org.usp.br||revsp1@usp.br1518-87870034-8910opendoar:2017-09-27T11:03:35Revista de Saúde Pública - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Screening for frailty in older adults using a self-reported instrument Rastreamento de fragilidade em idosos por instrumento autorreferido |
title |
Screening for frailty in older adults using a self-reported instrument |
spellingShingle |
Screening for frailty in older adults using a self-reported instrument Nunes, Daniella Pires Aged Frail Elderly Physical Fitness Motor Activity Diagnostic Self Evaluation Questionnaires utilization Validation Studies Idoso Idoso Fragilizado Aptidão Física Atividade Motora Autoavaliação Diagnóstica Questionários utilização Estudos de Validação |
title_short |
Screening for frailty in older adults using a self-reported instrument |
title_full |
Screening for frailty in older adults using a self-reported instrument |
title_fullStr |
Screening for frailty in older adults using a self-reported instrument |
title_full_unstemmed |
Screening for frailty in older adults using a self-reported instrument |
title_sort |
Screening for frailty in older adults using a self-reported instrument |
author |
Nunes, Daniella Pires |
author_facet |
Nunes, Daniella Pires Duarte, Yeda Aparecida de Oliveira Santos, Jair Lício Ferreira Lebrão, Maria Lúcia |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Duarte, Yeda Aparecida de Oliveira Santos, Jair Lício Ferreira Lebrão, Maria Lúcia |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Nunes, Daniella Pires Duarte, Yeda Aparecida de Oliveira Santos, Jair Lício Ferreira Lebrão, Maria Lúcia |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Aged Frail Elderly Physical Fitness Motor Activity Diagnostic Self Evaluation Questionnaires utilization Validation Studies Idoso Idoso Fragilizado Aptidão Física Atividade Motora Autoavaliação Diagnóstica Questionários utilização Estudos de Validação |
topic |
Aged Frail Elderly Physical Fitness Motor Activity Diagnostic Self Evaluation Questionnaires utilization Validation Studies Idoso Idoso Fragilizado Aptidão Física Atividade Motora Autoavaliação Diagnóstica Questionários utilização Estudos de Validação |
description |
OBJECTIVE To validate a screening instrument using self-reported assessment of frailty syndrome in older adults.METHODS This cross-sectional study used data from the Saúde, Bem-estar e Envelhecimento study conducted in Sao Paulo, SP, Southeastern Brazil. The sample consisted of 433 older adult individuals (≥ 75 years) assessed in 2009. The self-reported instrument can be applied to older adults or their proxy respondents and consists of dichotomous questions directly related to each component of the frailty phenotype, which is considered the gold standard model: unintentional weight loss, fatigue, low physical activity, decreased physical strength, and decreased walking speed. The same classification proposed in the phenotype was utilized: not frail (no component identified); pre-frail (presence of one or two components), and frail (presence of three or more components). Because this is a screening instrument, “process of frailty” was included as a category (pre-frail and frail). Cronbach’s α was used in psychometric analysis to evaluate the reliability and validity of the criterion, the sensitivity, the specificity, as well as positive and negative predictive values. Factor analysis was used to assess the suitability of the proposed number of components.RESULTS Decreased walking speed and decreased physical strength showed good internal consistency (α = 0.77 and 0.72, respectively); however, low physical activity was less satisfactory (α = 0.63). The sensitivity and specificity for identifying pre-frail individuals were 89.7% and 24.3%, respectively, while those for identifying frail individuals were 63.2% and 71.6%, respectively. In addition, 89.7% of the individuals from both the evaluations were identified in the “process of frailty” category.CONCLUSIONS The self-reported assessment of frailty can identify the syndrome among older adults and can be used as a screening tool. Its advantages include simplicity, rapidity, low cost, and ability to be used by different professionals. |
publishDate |
2015 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2015-01-01 |
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/130417 10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049005516 |
url |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/130417 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049005516 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng por |
language |
eng por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/130417/126800 https://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/130417/126801 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2017 Revista de Saúde Pública info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2017 Revista de Saúde Pública |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
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. 49 (2015); 2 Revista de Saúde Pública; Vol. 49 (2015); 2 Revista de Saúde Pública; v. 49 (2015); 2 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_ |
1800221797718687744 |