老年社区居民多发病脆弱措施的不一致性——一项横断面研究。

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Clinical Interventions in Aging Pub Date : 2023-09-26 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CIA.S411470
Amelie Lindh Mazya, Anna Axmon, Magnus Sandberg, Anne-Marie Boström, Anne W Ekdahl
{"title":"老年社区居民多发病脆弱措施的不一致性——一项横断面研究。","authors":"Amelie Lindh Mazya,&nbsp;Anna Axmon,&nbsp;Magnus Sandberg,&nbsp;Anne-Marie Boström,&nbsp;Anne W Ekdahl","doi":"10.2147/CIA.S411470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Assessment of frailty is a key method to identify older people in need of holistic care. However, agreement between different frailty instrument varies. Thus, groups classified as frail by different instruments are not completely overlapping. This study evaluated differences in sociodemographic factors, cognition, functional status, and quality of life between older persons with multimorbidity who were discordantly classified by five different frailty instruments, with focus on the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Fried's Frailty Phenotype (FP).</p><p><strong>Participants and methods: </strong>This was a cross-sectional study in a community-dwelling setting. Inclusion criteria were as follows: ≥75 years old, ≥3 visits to the emergency department the past 18 months, and ≥3 diagnoses according to ICD-10. 450 participants were included. Frailty was assessed by CFS, FP, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), Grip Strength and Walking Speed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>385 participants had data on all frailty instruments. Prevalence of frailty ranged from 34% (CFS) to 75% (SPPB). Nine percent of participants were non-frail by all instruments, 20% were frail by all instruments and 71% had discordant frailty classifications. Those who were frail according to CFS but not by the other instruments had lower cognition and functional status. Those who were frail according to FP but not CFS were, to a larger extent, women, lived alone, had higher cognitive ability and functional status.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The CFS might not identify physically frail women in older community-dwelling people with multimorbidity. They could thus be at risk of not be given the attention their frail condition need.</p>","PeriodicalId":48841,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Interventions in Aging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c8/40/cia-18-1607.PMC10543411.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discordance in Frailty Measures in Old Community Dwelling People with Multimorbidity - A Cross-Sectional Study.\",\"authors\":\"Amelie Lindh Mazya,&nbsp;Anna Axmon,&nbsp;Magnus Sandberg,&nbsp;Anne-Marie Boström,&nbsp;Anne W Ekdahl\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/CIA.S411470\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Assessment of frailty is a key method to identify older people in need of holistic care. However, agreement between different frailty instrument varies. Thus, groups classified as frail by different instruments are not completely overlapping. This study evaluated differences in sociodemographic factors, cognition, functional status, and quality of life between older persons with multimorbidity who were discordantly classified by five different frailty instruments, with focus on the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Fried's Frailty Phenotype (FP).</p><p><strong>Participants and methods: </strong>This was a cross-sectional study in a community-dwelling setting. Inclusion criteria were as follows: ≥75 years old, ≥3 visits to the emergency department the past 18 months, and ≥3 diagnoses according to ICD-10. 450 participants were included. Frailty was assessed by CFS, FP, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), Grip Strength and Walking Speed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>385 participants had data on all frailty instruments. Prevalence of frailty ranged from 34% (CFS) to 75% (SPPB). Nine percent of participants were non-frail by all instruments, 20% were frail by all instruments and 71% had discordant frailty classifications. Those who were frail according to CFS but not by the other instruments had lower cognition and functional status. Those who were frail according to FP but not CFS were, to a larger extent, women, lived alone, had higher cognitive ability and functional status.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The CFS might not identify physically frail women in older community-dwelling people with multimorbidity. They could thus be at risk of not be given the attention their frail condition need.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Interventions in Aging\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c8/40/cia-18-1607.PMC10543411.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Interventions in Aging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S411470\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Interventions in Aging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S411470","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:虚弱评估是识别需要整体护理的老年人的关键方法。然而,不同脆弱性工具之间的一致性各不相同。因此,被不同文书归类为脆弱的群体并不完全重叠。这项研究评估了患有多种疾病的老年人在社会人口统计学因素、认知、功能状态和生活质量方面的差异,这些老年人被五种不同的虚弱工具不一致地分类,重点关注临床虚弱量表(CFS)和弗里德虚弱表型(FP)。参与者和方法:这是一项在社区居住环境中进行的横断面研究。纳入标准如下:≥75岁,过去18个月内急诊就诊次数≥3次,根据ICD-10诊断≥3次。450名参与者被包括在内。通过CFS、FP、短体力电池(SPPB)、握力和步行速度来评估虚弱。结果:385名参与者掌握了所有虚弱仪器的数据。虚弱的患病率从34%(CFS)到75%(SPPB)不等。9%的参与者在所有仪器下都不虚弱,20%的参与者在各种仪器下都虚弱,71%的参与者的虚弱分类不一致。那些根据慢性疲劳综合征而不是通过其他工具虚弱的人认知和功能状态较低。根据FP而非CFS,那些身体虚弱的人在更大程度上是女性,独自生活,具有更高的认知能力和功能状态。结论:慢性疲劳综合征可能无法识别患有多种疾病的老年社区居民中身体虚弱的女性。因此,他们可能面临得不到身体虚弱所需关注的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Discordance in Frailty Measures in Old Community Dwelling People with Multimorbidity - A Cross-Sectional Study.

Purpose: Assessment of frailty is a key method to identify older people in need of holistic care. However, agreement between different frailty instrument varies. Thus, groups classified as frail by different instruments are not completely overlapping. This study evaluated differences in sociodemographic factors, cognition, functional status, and quality of life between older persons with multimorbidity who were discordantly classified by five different frailty instruments, with focus on the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Fried's Frailty Phenotype (FP).

Participants and methods: This was a cross-sectional study in a community-dwelling setting. Inclusion criteria were as follows: ≥75 years old, ≥3 visits to the emergency department the past 18 months, and ≥3 diagnoses according to ICD-10. 450 participants were included. Frailty was assessed by CFS, FP, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), Grip Strength and Walking Speed.

Results: 385 participants had data on all frailty instruments. Prevalence of frailty ranged from 34% (CFS) to 75% (SPPB). Nine percent of participants were non-frail by all instruments, 20% were frail by all instruments and 71% had discordant frailty classifications. Those who were frail according to CFS but not by the other instruments had lower cognition and functional status. Those who were frail according to FP but not CFS were, to a larger extent, women, lived alone, had higher cognitive ability and functional status.

Conclusion: The CFS might not identify physically frail women in older community-dwelling people with multimorbidity. They could thus be at risk of not be given the attention their frail condition need.

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
Clinical Interventions in Aging
Clinical Interventions in Aging GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
193
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Interventions in Aging, is an online, peer reviewed, open access journal focusing on concise rapid reporting of original research and reviews in aging. Special attention will be given to papers reporting on actual or potential clinical applications leading to improved prevention or treatment of disease or a greater understanding of pathological processes that result from maladaptive changes in the body associated with aging. This journal is directed at a wide array of scientists, engineers, pharmacists, pharmacologists and clinical specialists wishing to maintain an up to date knowledge of this exciting and emerging field.
期刊最新文献
Host Response in Critically Ill Patients Aged 65 Years or Older: A Prospective Study. The Monocyte-to-High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Ratio as a Novel Predictor of the Prevalence of Senile Osteoporosis. Development and Preliminary Psychometric Testing of a Brief Tool to Measure Medication Adherence in Older Populations. Effects on Physical Functioning and Fear of Falling of a 3-Week Balneotherapy Program Alone or Associated with a Physical Activity and Educational Program in Older Adult Fallers: A Randomized-Controlled Trial. Construction of a Home Hospice Care Program for Older Adults at the End of Life with Chronic Diseases in China: A Delphi Method.
×
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