Screening for frailty in older adults using a self-reported instrument

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Nunes, Daniella Pires
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Duarte, Yeda Aparecida de Oliveira, Santos, Jair Lício Ferreira, Lebrão, Maria Lúcia
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