Multidimensional instruments with an integral approach to identify frailty in community-dwelling people: protocol for a systematic psychometric review.
ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:An increasing number of investigations highlight the complex nature of frailty; therefore, the use of multidimensional assessment instruments could be useful in clinical decision-making. Frail people are found mainly in the community setting which is why this is the ideal environment for early screening and intervention. For this purpose, it is necessary to have valid, time-effective and easy-to-use frailty assessment instruments. The aim of this review is to critically appraise, compare and summarise the quality of the measurement properties of all multidimensional instruments with an integral approach to identify frailty in community-dwelling people. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Medline, Psychological Information Database (PsycINFO) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) will be searched from their inception dates. We will also conduct searches in databases of grey literature. No limits will be applied for language. A highly sensitive validated search filter will be used for finding studies on measurement properties. An additional search including the names of the instruments found in the initial search will also be undertaken. Studies aiming at the development of a measurement instrument, the evaluation of one or more measurement properties or the evaluation of its interpretability will be included. The instrument should have an integral approach (physical, psychological and social) and it should measure all three domains. The context of use should be a community setting. Two reviewers independently will screen the references and assess the risk of bias by consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments checklist. To assess the overall evidence for the measurement properties of the identified instruments, the results of the different studies, adjusted for their methodological quality, will be combined. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval and patient consent are not required as this is a psychometric review based on published studies. The results of this review will be disseminated at conferences and published in an international peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019120212.
Project description:Frailty is a dynamic process in which there is a reduction in the physical, psychological and/or social function associated with aging. The aim of this study was to identify instruments for the detection of frailty in older adults, characterizing their components, application scenarios, ability to identify pre-frailty and clinimetric properties evaluated. The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), under registration number CRD42017039318. A total of 14 electronic sources were searched to identify studies that investigated instruments for the detection of frailty or that presented the construction and/or clinimetric evaluation of the instrument, according to criteria established by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). 96 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis: 51 instruments for the detection of frailty were identified, with predominantly physical domains; 40 were constructed and/or validated for use in the older adult community population, 28 only highlighted the distinction between frail and non-frail individuals and 23 presented three or more levels of frailty. The FRAGIRE, FRAIL Scale, Edmonton Frail Scale and IVCF-20 instruments were the most frequently analyzed in relation to clinimetric properties. It was concluded that: (I) there is a large number of instruments for measuring the same construct, which makes it difficult for researchers and clinicians to choose the most appropriate; (II) the FRAGIRE and CFAI stand out due to their multidimensional aspects, including an environmental assessment; however, (III) the need for standardization of the scales was identified, since the use of different instruments in clinical trials may prevent the comparability of the results in systematic reviews and; (IV) considering the different instruments identified in this review, the choice of researchers/clinicians should be guided by the issues related to the translation and validation for their location and the suitability for their context.
Project description:PurposeFrailty is a geriatric syndrome that is usually considered as a set of physical deficits (unidimensional concept)?; however, it can also concern the psychological and social domains of human functioning (multidimensional concept). The FRAIL scale is a diagnostic tool which ascertains only physical frailty, whereas the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) is a diagnostic instrument for multidimensional frailty. The study investigates if non-robust physical status and multidimensional frailty affect the same individuals and whether simultaneous employment of the FRAIL scale and TFI identifies specific subgroups of elderly people which require different interventions.Patients and MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, 1024 community dwelling elderly individuals at the age of 65 years or older (mean age 72.6 ± 6.3 years; range 65–93 years) were evaluated with the FRAIL scale and TFI.ResultsAccording to the FRAIL scale, 52.9% of the subjects were physically non-robust, but according to TFI, 54.6% presented multidimensional frailty. These two diagnostic tools were concordant in their outcomes in 77.1% (ie, 42.3% of individuals were physically and multidimensionally frail but 34.8% were robust according to both two instruments)?; however, in 22.9% the outcomes were discordant. Consequently, by simultaneous employment of the FRAIL scale and TFI, four distinct functional categories have been distinguished: (i) non-robust physical status with multidimensional frailty, (ii) exclusive non-robust physical status, (iii) exclusive multidimensional frailty, and (iv) full robust status.ConclusionBy applying simple physical and multidimensional frailty diagnostic tools, subgroups of elderly people may be identified that require specific management strategies to improve their functional status.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Many instruments to identify frail older people have been developed. One of the consequences is that the prevalence rates of frailty vary widely dependent on the instrument selected. The aims of this study were 1) to examine the concordances and differences between a unidimensional and multidimensional assessment of frailty, 2) to assess to what extent the characteristics of a 'frail sample' differ depending on the selected frailty measurement because 'being frail' is used in many studies as an inclusion criterion. METHOD:A cross-sectional study was conducted among 196 community-dwelling older adults (?60?years), which were selected from the census records. Unidimensional frailty was operationalized according to the Fried Phenotype (FP) and multidimensional frailty was measured with the Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Instrument (CFAI). The concordances and differences were examined by prevalence, correlations, observed agreement and Kappa values. Differences between sample characteristics (e.g., age, physical activity, life satisfaction) were investigated with ANOVA and Kruskall-Wallis test. RESULTS:The mean age was 72.74 (SD 8.04) and 48.98% was male. According to the FP 23.59% was not-frail, 56.92% pre-frail and 19.49% frail. According to the CFAI, 44.33% was no-to-low frail, 37.63% was mild frail and 18.04% was high frail. The correlation between FP and the CFAI was r?=?0.46 and the observed agreement was 52.85%. The Kappa value was ??=?0.35 (quadratic ??=?0.45). In total, 11.92% of the participants were frail according to both measurements, 7.77% was solely frail according to the FP and 6.21% was solely frail according to the CFAI. The 'frail sample respondents' according to the FP had higher levels of life satisfaction and net income, but performed less physical activities in comparison to high frail people according to the CFAI. CONCLUSION:The present study shows that the FP and CFAI partly measure the same 'frailty-construct', although differences were found for instance in the prevalence of frailty and the composition of the 'frail participants'. Since 'being frail' is an inclusion criterion in many studies, researchers must be aware that the choice of the frailty measurement has an impact on both the estimates of frailty prevalence and the characteristics of the selected sample.
Project description:Purpose:To investigate the prevalence of multidimensional frailty in older people with hypertension and to examine a possible relationship of general obesity and abdominal obesity to frailty in older people with hypertension. Patients and Methods:A sample of 995 community-dwelling older people with hypertension, aged 65 years and older and living in Zhengzhou (China), completed the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), a validated self-report questionnaire for assessing multidimensional frailty. In addition, socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics were assessed by self-report, and obesity was determined by measuring waist circumference and calculating the body mass index. Results:The prevalence of multidimensional frailty in this older population with hypertension was 46.5%. Using multiple linear regression analysis, body mass index was significantly associated with physical frailty (p = 0.001), and waist circumference was significantly positively associated with multidimensional frailty and all three frailty domains. Older age was positively associated with multidimensional frailty, physical frailty, and psychological frailty, while gender (woman) was positively associated with multidimensional, psychological, and social frailty. Furthermore, comorbid diseases and being without a partner were positively associated with multidimensional, physical, psychological, and social frailty. Of the lifestyle characteristics, drinking alcohol was positively associated with frailty domains. Conclusion:Multidimensional frailty was highly prevalent among Chinese community-dwelling older people with hypertension. Abdominal obesity could be a concern in physical frailty, psychological frailty, and social frailty, while general obesity was concerning in relation to physical frailty.
Project description:PURPOSE:The Outcome measures for vascular malformation (OVAMA) group reached consensus on the core outcome domains for the core outcome set (COS) for peripheral vascular malformations (venous, lymphatic and arteriovenous malformations). However, it is unclear which instruments should be used to measure these domains. Therefore, our aims were to identify all outcome measurement instruments available for vascular malformations, and to evaluate their measurement properties. METHODS:With the first literature search, we identified outcomes and instruments previously used in prospective studies on vascular malformations. A second search yielded studies on measurement properties of patient- and physician-reported instruments that were either developed for vascular malformations, or used in prospective studies. If the latter instruments were not specifically validated for vascular malformations, we performed a third search for studies on measurement properties in clinically similar diseases (vascular or lymphatic diseases and benign tumors). We assessed the methodological quality of these studies following the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments methodology, and evaluated the quality of the measurement properties. RESULTS:The first search yielded 27 studies, none using disease-specific instruments. The second and third search included 22 development and/or validation studies, concerning six instruments. Only the Lymphatic Malformation Function Instrument was developed specifically for vascular malformations. Other instruments were generic QoL instruments developed and/or partly validated for clinically similar diseases. CONCLUSIONS:Additional research on measurement properties is needed to assess which instruments may be included in the COS. This review informs the instrument selection and/or the development of new instruments. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO, 42017056242.
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is a lack of agreement about applicable instrument to screen frailty in clinical settings. AIMS:To analyze the association between frailty and mortality in Finnish community-dwelling older people. METHODS:This was a prospective study with 10- and 18-year follow-ups. Frailty was assessed using FRAIL scale (FS) (n?=?1152), Rockwood's frailty index (FI) (n?=?1126), and PRISMA-7 (n?=?1124). To analyze the association between frailty and mortality, Cox regression model was used. RESULTS:Prevalence of frailty varied from 2 to 24% based on the index used. In unadjusted models, frailty was associated with higher mortality according to FS (hazard ratio 7.96 [95% confidence interval 5.10-12.41] in 10-year follow-up, and 6.32 [4.17-9.57] in 18-year follow-up) and FI (5.97 [4.13-8.64], and 3.95 [3.16-4.94], respectively) in both follow-ups. Also being pre-frail was associated with higher mortality according to both indexes in both follow-ups (FS 2.19 [1.78-2.69], and 1.69 [1.46-1.96]; FI 1.81[1.25-2.62], and 1.31 [1.07-1.61], respectively). Associations persisted even after adjustments. Also according to PRISMA-7, a binary index (robust or frail), frailty was associated with higher mortality in 10- (4.41 [3.55-5.34]) and 18-year follow-ups (3.78 [3.19-4.49]). DISCUSSION:Frailty was associated with higher mortality risk according to all three frailty screening instrument used. Simple and fast frailty indexes, FS and PRISMA-7, seemed to be comparable with a multidimensional time-consuming FI in predicting mortality among community-dwelling Finnish older people. CONCLUSIONS:FS and PRISMA-7 are applicable frailty screening instruments in clinical setting among community-dwelling Finnish older people.
Project description:The medical syndrome of frailty is widely recognized, yet debate remains over how best to measure it in clinical and research settings. This study reviewed the frailty-related research literature by (a) comprehensively cataloging the wide array of instruments that have been utilized to measure frailty, and (b) systematically categorizing the different purposes and contexts of use for frailty instruments frequently cited in the research literature. We identified 67 frailty instruments total; of these, nine were highly-cited (? 200 citations). We randomly sampled and reviewed 545 English-language articles citing at least one highly-cited instrument. We estimated the total number of uses, and classified use into eight categories: risk assessment for adverse health outcomes (31% of all uses); etiological studies of frailty (22%); methodology studies (14%); biomarker studies (12%); inclusion/exclusion criteria (10%); estimating prevalence as primary goal (5%); clinical decision-making (2%); and interventional targeting (2%). The most common assessment context was observational studies of older community-dwelling adults. Physical Frailty Phenotype was the most used frailty instrument in the research literature, followed by the Deficit Accumulation Index and the Vulnerable Elders Survey. This study provides an empirical evaluation of the current uses of frailty instruments, which may be important to consider when selecting instruments for clinical or research purposes. We recommend careful consideration in the selection of a frailty instrument based on the intended purpose, domains captured, and how the instrument has been used in the past. Continued efforts are needed to study the validity and feasibility of these instruments.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>The translation of research into practices has been incomplete. Organizational readiness for change (ORC) is a potential facilitator of effective knowledge translation (KT). However we know little about the best way to assess ORC. Therefore, we sought to systematically review ORC measurement instruments.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched for published studies in bibliographic databases (Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, etc.) up to November 1st, 2012. We included publications that developed ORC measures and/or empirically assessed ORC using an instrument at the organizational level in the health care context. We excluded articles if they did not refer specifically to ORC, did not concern the health care domain or were limited to individual-level change readiness. We focused on identifying the psychometric properties of instruments that were developed to assess readiness in an organization prior to implementing KT interventions in health care. We used the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing to assess the psychometric properties of identified ORC measurement instruments.<h4>Findings</h4>We found 26 eligible instruments described in 39 publications. According to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 18 (69%) of a total of 26 measurement instruments presented both validity and reliability criteria. The Texas Christian University -ORC (TCU-ORC) scale reported the highest instrument validity with a score of 4 out of 4. Only one instrument, namely the Modified Texas Christian University - Director version (TCU-ORC-D), reported a reliability score of 2 out of 3. No information was provided regarding the reliability and validity of five (19%) instruments.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Our findings indicate that there are few valid and reliable ORC measurement instruments that could be applied to KT in the health care sector. The TCU-ORC instrument presents the best evidence in terms of validity testing. Future studies using this instrument could provide more knowledge on its relevance to diverse clinical contexts.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:As vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks increase, there is growing international interest in monitoring public attitudes towards vaccination and implementing and evaluating vaccine promotion interventions. Outcome selection and measurement are central to intervention evaluation. Measuring uptake rates alone cannot determine which elements in a multicomponent vaccine-promotion intervention are most effective, why specific populations are undervaccinated or when confidence in vaccines is wavering. To develop targeted and cost-effective interventions and policies, it is necessary to measure vaccination-related psychosocial factors such as knowledge, attitudes and aspects of decision-making. This scoping review aims to identify, compare and summarise the properties and validation of instruments for measuring vaccination-related psychosocial factors and identify gaps where no instruments exist. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will search Medline OVID, Embase OVID, CINAHL and PsycINFO with no date restriction, using a pilot-tested search strategy of terms related to vaccination: knowledge, attitudes, trust, acceptance and decision-making and measurement, psychometric testing or validation. This search will be supplemented with manual search and expert consultation. We will include studies that describe instrument development, adaptation or testing and include evaluation of at least two measurement properties (eg, content, criterion, or construct validity; test-retest reliability; internal consistency; sensitivity; responsiveness). Instruments measuring a vaccination-related psychosocial factor in any population will be included. All studies will be screened by one reviewer, with a sample double-screened to confirm accuracy. Disagreements will be resolved with a third reviewer. Data will be synthesised narratively and through summary tables to chart and compare instrument characteristics such as factors measured, date and/or location of development or validation, measurement properties evaluated and population. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This scoping review aims to provide an overview of existing instruments and ascertain measurement gaps where no measurement instruments currently exist. The identified instruments will form the basis of an open-access online repository of instruments.
Project description:Objectives: The purpose of evaluative instruments is to measure the magnitude of change in a construct of interest over time. The measurement properties of these instruments, as they relate to the instrument's ability to fulfill its purpose, determine the degree of certainty with which the results yielded can be viewed. This work systematically reviews all instruments that have been used to evaluate cognitive functioning in persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI), and critically assesses their evaluative measurement properties: construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Central, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO were searched from inception to December 2016 to identify longitudinal studies focused on cognitive evaluation of persons with TBI, from which instruments used for measuring cognitive functioning were abstracted. MEDLINE, instrument manuals, and citations of articles identified in the primary search were then screened for studies on measurement properties of instruments utilized at least twice within the longitudinal studies. Study Selection: All English-language, peer-reviewed studies of longitudinal design that measured cognition in adults with a TBI diagnosis over any period of time, identified in the primary search, were used to identify instruments. A secondary search was carried out to identify all studies that assessed the evaluative measurement properties of the instruments abstracted in the primary search. Data Extraction: Data on psychometric properties, cognitive domains covered and clinical utility were extracted for all instruments. Results: In total, 38 longitudinal studies from the primary search, utilizing 15 instruments, met inclusion and quality criteria. Following review of studies identified in the secondary search, it was determined that none of the instruments utilized had been assessed for all the relevant measurement properties in the TBI population. The most frequently assessed property was construct validity. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence for the validity and reliability of instruments measuring cognitive functioning, longitudinally, in persons with TBI. Several instruments with well-defined construct validity in TBI samples warrant further assessment for test-retest reliability and responsiveness. Registration Number: www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42017055309.