Cargando…

Review of frailty measurement of older people: Evaluation of the conceptualization, included domains, psychometric properties, and applicability

The purposes of this review are to describe the existing research on frailty measurement of older people and to understand their characteristics, with a focus on conceptual definitions, psychometric properties, and diagnostic accuracies. We reviewed the published literature to explore if cross‐cultu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Emma Yun‐zhi, Lam, Simon Ching
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8711219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34964008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/agm2.12177
_version_ 1784623327342493696
author Huang, Emma Yun‐zhi
Lam, Simon Ching
author_facet Huang, Emma Yun‐zhi
Lam, Simon Ching
author_sort Huang, Emma Yun‐zhi
collection PubMed
description The purposes of this review are to describe the existing research on frailty measurement of older people and to understand their characteristics, with a focus on conceptual definitions, psychometric properties, and diagnostic accuracies. We reviewed the published literature to explore if cross‐cultural studies of different types of frailty measurements have been conducted and to determine their applicability in the community setting. Narrative review with limited electronic database search and cross reference searching of included studies was performed. Studies published after year 2001 were searched for using MEDLINE and CINAHL Plus databases with keywords. A total of 5144 search results were obtained, but only 42 frailty measurements were identified in 68 studies. For the type, three different measurements were indicated, namely, self‐report instrument (n = 17), clinical observation assessment (n = 19), and mixed frailty assessment instrument (n = 6). Only 12 (29%) measurements examined reliability and validity. Nevertheless, over 35% did not perform any psychometric testing before applying. For diagnosis accuracies, 35 (83%) frailty measurements reported the cut‐off value(s) for determining level of the frailty. However, the sensitivity (56%‐89.5%) and specificity (52%‐91.3%) varied. The applicability was also diverse and some frailty instruments should be only used in some specific population and mode of administration. This review provides an overview of three major types of frailty measurements used in different settings with different purposes. For estimating the prevalence of frailty of older people in a community, the self‐report type may be appropriate. The psychometric properties of many reviewed instruments are reported insufficiently. The cut‐off value(s) are usually suggested with diverse sensitivity and specificity. Self‐report instruments, such as Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) and Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), are the most extensively examined in terms of satisfactory psychometric properties. Thus, GFI and TFI, with the current evidence, are recommended to be used in the community setting for frailty screening tools.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8711219
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87112192021-12-27 Review of frailty measurement of older people: Evaluation of the conceptualization, included domains, psychometric properties, and applicability Huang, Emma Yun‐zhi Lam, Simon Ching Aging Med (Milton) SPECIAL ISSUE FOR FRAILTY AND SARCOPENIA IN THE ELDERLY The purposes of this review are to describe the existing research on frailty measurement of older people and to understand their characteristics, with a focus on conceptual definitions, psychometric properties, and diagnostic accuracies. We reviewed the published literature to explore if cross‐cultural studies of different types of frailty measurements have been conducted and to determine their applicability in the community setting. Narrative review with limited electronic database search and cross reference searching of included studies was performed. Studies published after year 2001 were searched for using MEDLINE and CINAHL Plus databases with keywords. A total of 5144 search results were obtained, but only 42 frailty measurements were identified in 68 studies. For the type, three different measurements were indicated, namely, self‐report instrument (n = 17), clinical observation assessment (n = 19), and mixed frailty assessment instrument (n = 6). Only 12 (29%) measurements examined reliability and validity. Nevertheless, over 35% did not perform any psychometric testing before applying. For diagnosis accuracies, 35 (83%) frailty measurements reported the cut‐off value(s) for determining level of the frailty. However, the sensitivity (56%‐89.5%) and specificity (52%‐91.3%) varied. The applicability was also diverse and some frailty instruments should be only used in some specific population and mode of administration. This review provides an overview of three major types of frailty measurements used in different settings with different purposes. For estimating the prevalence of frailty of older people in a community, the self‐report type may be appropriate. The psychometric properties of many reviewed instruments are reported insufficiently. The cut‐off value(s) are usually suggested with diverse sensitivity and specificity. Self‐report instruments, such as Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) and Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), are the most extensively examined in terms of satisfactory psychometric properties. Thus, GFI and TFI, with the current evidence, are recommended to be used in the community setting for frailty screening tools. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-09-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8711219/ /pubmed/34964008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/agm2.12177 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Aging Medicine published by Beijing Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle SPECIAL ISSUE FOR FRAILTY AND SARCOPENIA IN THE ELDERLY
Huang, Emma Yun‐zhi
Lam, Simon Ching
Review of frailty measurement of older people: Evaluation of the conceptualization, included domains, psychometric properties, and applicability
title Review of frailty measurement of older people: Evaluation of the conceptualization, included domains, psychometric properties, and applicability
title_full Review of frailty measurement of older people: Evaluation of the conceptualization, included domains, psychometric properties, and applicability
title_fullStr Review of frailty measurement of older people: Evaluation of the conceptualization, included domains, psychometric properties, and applicability
title_full_unstemmed Review of frailty measurement of older people: Evaluation of the conceptualization, included domains, psychometric properties, and applicability
title_short Review of frailty measurement of older people: Evaluation of the conceptualization, included domains, psychometric properties, and applicability
title_sort review of frailty measurement of older people: evaluation of the conceptualization, included domains, psychometric properties, and applicability
topic SPECIAL ISSUE FOR FRAILTY AND SARCOPENIA IN THE ELDERLY
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8711219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34964008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/agm2.12177
work_keys_str_mv AT huangemmayunzhi reviewoffrailtymeasurementofolderpeopleevaluationoftheconceptualizationincludeddomainspsychometricpropertiesandapplicability
AT lamsimonching reviewoffrailtymeasurementofolderpeopleevaluationoftheconceptualizationincludeddomainspsychometricpropertiesandapplicability