Cargando…
The FRAIL-NH Scale: Systematic Review of the Use, Validity and Adaptations for Frailty Screening in Nursing Homes
OBJECTIVES: To investigate frailty prevalence, cross-sectional associations, predictive validity, concurrent validity, and cross-cultural adaptations of the FRAIL-NH scale. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Frail residents living in nursing homes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL,...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Paris
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8549594/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34866147 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12603-021-1694-3 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVES: To investigate frailty prevalence, cross-sectional associations, predictive validity, concurrent validity, and cross-cultural adaptations of the FRAIL-NH scale. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Frail residents living in nursing homes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 2015 to June 2021 for primary studies that used the FRAIL-NH scale, irrespective of study designs and publication language. RESULTS: Overall, 40 studies conducted across 20 countries utilized the FRAIL-NH scale; majority in Australia (n=14), followed by China (n=6), United States (n=3), and Spain (n=3). The scale has been translated and back-translated into Brazilian Portuguese, Chinese, and Japanese. Various cut-offs have been used, with ≥2 and ≥6 being the most common cut-offs for frail and most frail, respectively. When defined using these cut-offs, frailty prevalence varied from 15.1–79.5% (frail) to 28.5–75.0% (most frail). FRAIL-NH predicted falls (n=2), hospitalization or length of stay (n=4), functional or cognitive decline (n=4), and mortality (n=9) over a median follow-up of 12 months. FRAIL-NH has been compared to 16 other scales, and was correlated with Fried’s phenotype (FP), Frailty Index (FI), and FI-Lab. Four studies reported fair-to-moderate agreements between FRAIL-NH and FI, FP, and the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. Ten studies assessed the sensitivity and specificity of different FRAIL-NH cutoffs, with ≥8 having the highest sensitivity (94.1%) and specificity (82.8%) for classifying residents as frail based on FI, while two studies reported an optimal cut-off of ≥2 based on FI and FP, respectively. CONCLUSION: In seven years, the FRAIL-NH scale has been applied in 20 countries and adapted into three languages. Despite being applied with a range of cut-offs, FRAIL-NH was associated with higher care needs and demonstrated good agreement with other well-established but more complex scales. FRAIL-NH was predictive of adverse outcomes across different settings, highlighting its value in guiding care for frail residents in nursing homes. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: Supplementary material is available for this article at 10.1007/s12603-021-1694-3 and is accessible for authorized users. |
---|