Frailty in community-dwelling older people: comparing screening instruments

• 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: eng
• Título da fonte: Revista de Saúde Pública
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-89102020000100289
• topic: Aged; Frailty, Epidemiology; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Factors; Health Surveys, Instrumentation

ABSTRACT 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 community-dwelling older people.