Searchable Title

Screening for Frailty in Older Adults Using a Self-Reported Instrument. Copyright: Nunes, D. P.;Duarte, Y. A.;Santos, J. L.; Lebrao, M. L.

Reference Type

Journal Article

Authors, Section

Nunes, D. P.; Duarte, Y. A.; Santos, J. L.; Lebrao, M. L.

Title, Section

Screening for Frailty in Older Adults Using a Self-Reported Instrument. Copyright: Nunes, D. P.;Duarte, Y. A.;Santos, J. L.; Lebrao, M. L.

Publication Year

2015

Journal Title

Revista de Saude Publica

Volume

49

Issue

Feb. 27

Pages

1-9

Availability

online

PMID

PMID: 25741658

DOI

10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049005516

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To validate a screening instrument using self-reported assessment of frailty syndrome in older adults. METHODS This cross-sectional study used data from the Saúde, Bem-estar e Envelhecimento study conducted in Sao Paulo, SP, Southeastern Brazil. The sample consisted of 433 older adult individuals (≥ 75 years) assessed in 2009. The self-reported instrument can be applied to older adults or their proxy respondents and consists of dichotomous questions directly related to each component of the frailty phenotype, which is considered the gold standard model: unintentional weight loss, fatigue, low physical activity, decreased physical strength, and decreased walking speed. The same classification proposed in the phenotype was utilized: not frail (no component identified); pre-frail (presence of one or two components), and frail (presence of three or more components). Because this is a screening instrument, "process of frailty" was included as a category (pre-frail and frail). Cronbach's α was used in psychometric analysis to evaluate the reliability and validity of the criterion, the sensitivity, the specificity, as well as positive and negative predictive values. Factor analysis was used to assess the suitability of the proposed number of components. RESULTS Decreased walking speed and decreased physical strength showed good internal consistency (α = 0.77 and 0.72, respectively); however, low physical activity was less satisfactory (α = 0.63). The sensitivity and specificity for identifying pre-frail individuals were 89.7% and 24.3%, respectively, while those for identifying frail individuals were 63.2% and 71.6%, respectively. In addition, 89.7% of the individuals from both the evaluations were identified in the "process of frailty" category. CONCLUSIONS The self-reported assessment of frailty can identify the syndrome among older adults and can be used as a screening tool. Its advantages include simplicity, rapidity, low cost, and ability to be used by different professionals.

Share

COinS