虚弱和智力残疾:不同的操作方式?

Heleen Evenhuis, Josje Schoufour, Michael Echteld
{"title":"虚弱和智力残疾:不同的操作方式?","authors":"Heleen Evenhuis,&nbsp;Josje Schoufour,&nbsp;Michael Echteld","doi":"10.1002/ddrr.1124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Frailty is increasingly being recognized as a relevant health measure in older populations, associated with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes and care dependency. Because it is generally perceived that people with intellectual disabilities are “old” from age 50 onwards, frailty research in this group might lead to an understanding of factors, contributing to this perception. The development since the 1990s of conceptual and operational definitions of frailty has resulted in different approaches: biological (phenotype), multidimensional, and non-specific deficit accumulation. All approaches consider disability a consequence rather than a cause of frailty. This may be different for long-disabled populations, which would have consequences for validity of frailty measures. First research shows that the different approaches are applicable to study populations with intellectual disabilities as well. Frailty as defined by both the phenotypic and deficit accumulation approach appears to develop considerably earlier and is more severe in people with intellectual disabilities than in the general older population, supporting the notion of early aging. Before any clinical implications can be outlined, health outcomes (validity), causes, and prevention of frailty should be investigated. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Dev Disabil Res Rev 2013;18:17–21.</p>","PeriodicalId":55176,"journal":{"name":"Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews","volume":"18 1","pages":"17-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ddrr.1124","citationCount":"31","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Frailty and intellectual disability: A different operationalization?\",\"authors\":\"Heleen Evenhuis,&nbsp;Josje Schoufour,&nbsp;Michael Echteld\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ddrr.1124\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Frailty is increasingly being recognized as a relevant health measure in older populations, associated with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes and care dependency. Because it is generally perceived that people with intellectual disabilities are “old” from age 50 onwards, frailty research in this group might lead to an understanding of factors, contributing to this perception. The development since the 1990s of conceptual and operational definitions of frailty has resulted in different approaches: biological (phenotype), multidimensional, and non-specific deficit accumulation. All approaches consider disability a consequence rather than a cause of frailty. This may be different for long-disabled populations, which would have consequences for validity of frailty measures. First research shows that the different approaches are applicable to study populations with intellectual disabilities as well. Frailty as defined by both the phenotypic and deficit accumulation approach appears to develop considerably earlier and is more severe in people with intellectual disabilities than in the general older population, supporting the notion of early aging. Before any clinical implications can be outlined, health outcomes (validity), causes, and prevention of frailty should be investigated. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Dev Disabil Res Rev 2013;18:17–21.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"17-21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ddrr.1124\",\"citationCount\":\"31\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ddrr.1124\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ddrr.1124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

摘要

越来越多的人认识到,虚弱是老年人的一项相关健康措施,与不良健康结果和护理依赖风险增加有关。因为人们普遍认为,智障人士从50岁起就“老”了,对这一群体的脆弱性研究可能会导致对形成这种看法的因素的理解。自20世纪90年代以来,脆弱性的概念和操作定义的发展导致了不同的方法:生物学(表型),多维和非特异性缺陷积累。所有的方法都认为残疾是虚弱的结果,而不是原因。对于长期残疾的人群来说,情况可能有所不同,这将影响到脆弱性测量的有效性。首先,研究表明,不同的方法也适用于研究智力残疾人群。由表型和缺陷积累方法定义的虚弱似乎在智力残疾人群中比在一般老年人中发展得更早,更严重,支持早期衰老的概念。在概述任何临床意义之前,应该调查健康结果(有效性)、原因和虚弱的预防。©2013 Wiley期刊公司开发与残疾,2013;18:17-21。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Frailty and intellectual disability: A different operationalization?

Frailty is increasingly being recognized as a relevant health measure in older populations, associated with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes and care dependency. Because it is generally perceived that people with intellectual disabilities are “old” from age 50 onwards, frailty research in this group might lead to an understanding of factors, contributing to this perception. The development since the 1990s of conceptual and operational definitions of frailty has resulted in different approaches: biological (phenotype), multidimensional, and non-specific deficit accumulation. All approaches consider disability a consequence rather than a cause of frailty. This may be different for long-disabled populations, which would have consequences for validity of frailty measures. First research shows that the different approaches are applicable to study populations with intellectual disabilities as well. Frailty as defined by both the phenotypic and deficit accumulation approach appears to develop considerably earlier and is more severe in people with intellectual disabilities than in the general older population, supporting the notion of early aging. Before any clinical implications can be outlined, health outcomes (validity), causes, and prevention of frailty should be investigated. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Dev Disabil Res Rev 2013;18:17–21.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Aging and intellectual disability: Insights from mouse models of down syndrome Aging in rare intellectual disability syndromes Health, functioning, and participation of adolescents and adults with cerebral palsy: A review of outcomes research Fragile X syndrome: An aging perspective Editorial: Special issue on adult development and aging with IDD
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1