E Gonzalez-Bautista, P de Souto Barreto, N Tavassoli, C Ranarijhon, J S Pons, Y Rolland, S Andrieu, J Delrieu
{"title":"使用ICOPE监测应用程序自我筛查内在能力障碍的可靠性","authors":"E Gonzalez-Bautista, P de Souto Barreto, N Tavassoli, C Ranarijhon, J S Pons, Y Rolland, S Andrieu, J Delrieu","doi":"10.14283/jfa.2023.34","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To verify the inter-rater agreement of the Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) STEP 1 screening tool using the ICOPE Monitor app, comparing self-assessment to a screening performed by a health professional.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared the results of the ICOPE Step 1 obtained by self-screening with those obtained by a professional screening using Gwet's agreement coefficient in two studies. Study 1 tested inter-rater reliability in participants to the INSPIRE-T cohort who agreed to undergo the self-and the professional screening on the same day. Study 2 used data from the INSPIRE-ICOPE care cohort. We included real-life users of the French health system whose first ICOPE Step 1 was a self-assessment followed by a professional Step 1within 130 days (mean=76 days, SD=60).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Study 1 included 79 participants (45 aged less than 60, 34 aged 60 and over, 60% female, mean (SD) age of 54.5 (18.5) years). Of the 207 participants in Study 2, 49 were less than 60, and 158 were 60 and over (54% female, mean (SD) age 67 (16.1) years). Agreement coefficients in Study 1 ranged from 0.49 (CI95% 0.24; 0.66) in the cognition domain - moderate agreement) to 0.99 (CI95% 0.96;1.00) in the nutrition domain - very good agreement); and in Study 2 from 0.36 (CI95% 0.23;0.49) in the cognition domain to 0.97 (95% 0.95;1.00) in the nutrition domain. The agreement coefficients for the cognition and hearing domains were higher for the participants aged <60 than those aged 60 and over. The time orientation items (cognition) showed high reliability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study supports using ICOPE Step 1 as a self-assessment screening tool. High reliability was found for intrinsic capacity's nutrition, psychological, and locomotion domains, regardless of age. We discuss aspects of the self-assessment of cognition, vision, and hearing domains when using the ICOPE monitor app in older adults.</p>","PeriodicalId":51629,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Frailty & Aging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of Self-Screening for Intrinsic Capacity Impairments Using the ICOPE Monitor App.\",\"authors\":\"E Gonzalez-Bautista, P de Souto Barreto, N Tavassoli, C Ranarijhon, J S Pons, Y Rolland, S Andrieu, J Delrieu\",\"doi\":\"10.14283/jfa.2023.34\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To verify the inter-rater agreement of the Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) STEP 1 screening tool using the ICOPE Monitor app, comparing self-assessment to a screening performed by a health professional.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared the results of the ICOPE Step 1 obtained by self-screening with those obtained by a professional screening using Gwet's agreement coefficient in two studies. Study 1 tested inter-rater reliability in participants to the INSPIRE-T cohort who agreed to undergo the self-and the professional screening on the same day. Study 2 used data from the INSPIRE-ICOPE care cohort. We included real-life users of the French health system whose first ICOPE Step 1 was a self-assessment followed by a professional Step 1within 130 days (mean=76 days, SD=60).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Study 1 included 79 participants (45 aged less than 60, 34 aged 60 and over, 60% female, mean (SD) age of 54.5 (18.5) years). Of the 207 participants in Study 2, 49 were less than 60, and 158 were 60 and over (54% female, mean (SD) age 67 (16.1) years). Agreement coefficients in Study 1 ranged from 0.49 (CI95% 0.24; 0.66) in the cognition domain - moderate agreement) to 0.99 (CI95% 0.96;1.00) in the nutrition domain - very good agreement); and in Study 2 from 0.36 (CI95% 0.23;0.49) in the cognition domain to 0.97 (95% 0.95;1.00) in the nutrition domain. The agreement coefficients for the cognition and hearing domains were higher for the participants aged <60 than those aged 60 and over. The time orientation items (cognition) showed high reliability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study supports using ICOPE Step 1 as a self-assessment screening tool. High reliability was found for intrinsic capacity's nutrition, psychological, and locomotion domains, regardless of age. We discuss aspects of the self-assessment of cognition, vision, and hearing domains when using the ICOPE monitor app in older adults.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51629,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Frailty & Aging\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Frailty & Aging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14283/jfa.2023.34\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Frailty & Aging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14283/jfa.2023.34","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reliability of Self-Screening for Intrinsic Capacity Impairments Using the ICOPE Monitor App.
Aim: To verify the inter-rater agreement of the Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) STEP 1 screening tool using the ICOPE Monitor app, comparing self-assessment to a screening performed by a health professional.
Methods: We compared the results of the ICOPE Step 1 obtained by self-screening with those obtained by a professional screening using Gwet's agreement coefficient in two studies. Study 1 tested inter-rater reliability in participants to the INSPIRE-T cohort who agreed to undergo the self-and the professional screening on the same day. Study 2 used data from the INSPIRE-ICOPE care cohort. We included real-life users of the French health system whose first ICOPE Step 1 was a self-assessment followed by a professional Step 1within 130 days (mean=76 days, SD=60).
Results: Study 1 included 79 participants (45 aged less than 60, 34 aged 60 and over, 60% female, mean (SD) age of 54.5 (18.5) years). Of the 207 participants in Study 2, 49 were less than 60, and 158 were 60 and over (54% female, mean (SD) age 67 (16.1) years). Agreement coefficients in Study 1 ranged from 0.49 (CI95% 0.24; 0.66) in the cognition domain - moderate agreement) to 0.99 (CI95% 0.96;1.00) in the nutrition domain - very good agreement); and in Study 2 from 0.36 (CI95% 0.23;0.49) in the cognition domain to 0.97 (95% 0.95;1.00) in the nutrition domain. The agreement coefficients for the cognition and hearing domains were higher for the participants aged <60 than those aged 60 and over. The time orientation items (cognition) showed high reliability.
Conclusion: Our study supports using ICOPE Step 1 as a self-assessment screening tool. High reliability was found for intrinsic capacity's nutrition, psychological, and locomotion domains, regardless of age. We discuss aspects of the self-assessment of cognition, vision, and hearing domains when using the ICOPE monitor app in older adults.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Frailty & Aging is a peer-reviewed international journal aimed at presenting articles that are related to research in the area of aging and age-related (sub)clinical conditions. In particular, the journal publishes high-quality papers describing and discussing social, biological, and clinical features underlying the onset and development of frailty in older persons. The Journal of Frailty & Aging is composed by five different sections: - Biology of frailty and aging In this section, the journal presents reports from preclinical studies and experiences focused at identifying, describing, and understanding the subclinical pathophysiological mechanisms at the basis of frailty and aging. - Physical frailty and age-related body composition modifications Studies exploring the physical and functional components of frailty are contained in this section. Moreover, since body composition plays a major role in determining physical frailty and, at the same time, represents the most evident feature of the aging process, special attention is given to studies focused on sarcopenia and obesity at older age. - Neurosciences of frailty and aging The section presents results from studies exploring the cognitive and neurological aspects of frailty and age-related conditions. In particular, papers on neurodegenerative conditions of advanced age are welcomed. - Frailty and aging in clinical practice and public health This journal’s section is devoted at presenting studies on clinical issues of frailty and age-related conditions. This multidisciplinary section particularly welcomes reports from clinicians coming from different backgrounds and specialties dealing with the heterogeneous clinical manifestations of advanced age. Moreover, this part of the journal also contains reports on frailty- and age-related social and public health issues. - Clinical trials and therapeutics This final section contains all the manuscripts presenting data on (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) interventions aimed at preventing, delaying, or treating frailty and age-related conditions.The Journal of Frailty & Aging is a quarterly publication of original papers, review articles, case reports, controversies, letters to the Editor, and book reviews. Manuscripts will be evaluated by the editorial staff and, if suitable, by expert reviewers assigned by the editors. The journal particularly welcomes papers by researchers from different backgrounds and specialities who may want to share their views and experiences on the common themes of frailty and aging.The abstracting and indexing of the Journal of Frailty & Aging is covered by MEDLINE (approval by the National Library of Medicine in February 2016).