A comparison between uni- and multidimensional frailty measures: prevalence, functional status, and relationships with disability

Mattia Roppolo,1,2 Anna Mulasso,1 Robbert J Gobbens,3,4 Cristina O Mosso,1 Emanuela Rabaglietti1 1Department of Psychology, University of Torino, Torino, Italy; 2Department of Developmental Psychology, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 3Faculty of Health, Sports and Social Wo...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Roppolo M, Mulasso A, Gobbens RJ, Mosso CO, Rabaglietti E
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/804c1c39cd4e445bb61caf42d07556b0
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:804c1c39cd4e445bb61caf42d07556b0
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:804c1c39cd4e445bb61caf42d07556b02021-12-02T03:57:18ZA comparison between uni- and multidimensional frailty measures: prevalence, functional status, and relationships with disability1178-1998https://doaj.org/article/804c1c39cd4e445bb61caf42d07556b02015-10-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.dovepress.com/a-comparison-between-uni--and-multidimensional-frailty-measures-preval-peer-reviewed-article-CIAhttps://doaj.org/toc/1178-1998Mattia Roppolo,1,2 Anna Mulasso,1 Robbert J Gobbens,3,4 Cristina O Mosso,1 Emanuela Rabaglietti1 1Department of Psychology, University of Torino, Torino, Italy; 2Department of Developmental Psychology, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 3Faculty of Health, Sports and Social Work, Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 4Zonnehuisgroep Amstelland, Amstelveen, the Netherlands Background: Over the years, a plethora of frailty assessment tools has been developed. These instruments can be basically grouped into two types of conceptualizations – unidimensional, based on the physical–biological dimension – and multidimensional, based on the connections among the physical, psychological, and social domains. At present, studies on the comparison between uni- and multidimensional frailty measures are limited.Objective: The aims of this paper were: 1) to compare the prevalence of frailty obtained using a uni- and a multidimensional measure; 2) to analyze differences in the functional status among individuals captured as frail or robust by the two measures; and 3) to investigate relations between the two frailty measures and disability.Methods: Two hundred and sixty-seven community-dwelling older adults (73.4±6 years old, 59.9% of women) participated in this cross-sectional study. The Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) index and the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) were used to measure frailty in a uni- and multidimensional way, respectively. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire, the Center of Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale, and the Loneliness Scale were administered to evaluate the functional status. Disability was assessed using the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale. Data were treated with descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance, correlations, and receiver operating characteristic analyses through the evaluation of the areas under the curve.Results: Results showed that frailty prevalence rate is strictly dependent on the index used (CHS =12.7%; TFI =44.6%). Furthermore, frail individuals presented differences in terms of functional status in all the domains. Frailty measures were significantly correlated with each other (r=0.483), and with disability (CHS: r=0.423; TFI: r=0.475). Finally, the area under the curve of the TFI (0.833) for disability was higher with respect to the one of CHS (0.770).Conclusion: Data reported here confirm that different instruments capture different frail individuals. Clinicians and researchers have to consider the different abilities of the two measures to detect frail individuals. Keywords: functional decline, older adults, health outcomes, active aging, indexes selection Roppolo MMulasso AGobbens RJMosso CORabaglietti EDove Medical Pressarticlefunctional declineolder adultshealth outcomesactive agingindexes selectionGeriatricsRC952-954.6ENClinical Interventions in Aging, Vol Volume 10, Pp 1669-1678 (2015)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic functional decline
older adults
health outcomes
active aging
indexes selection
Geriatrics
RC952-954.6
spellingShingle functional decline
older adults
health outcomes
active aging
indexes selection
Geriatrics
RC952-954.6
Roppolo M
Mulasso A
Gobbens RJ
Mosso CO
Rabaglietti E
A comparison between uni- and multidimensional frailty measures: prevalence, functional status, and relationships with disability
description Mattia Roppolo,1,2 Anna Mulasso,1 Robbert J Gobbens,3,4 Cristina O Mosso,1 Emanuela Rabaglietti1 1Department of Psychology, University of Torino, Torino, Italy; 2Department of Developmental Psychology, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 3Faculty of Health, Sports and Social Work, Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 4Zonnehuisgroep Amstelland, Amstelveen, the Netherlands Background: Over the years, a plethora of frailty assessment tools has been developed. These instruments can be basically grouped into two types of conceptualizations – unidimensional, based on the physical–biological dimension – and multidimensional, based on the connections among the physical, psychological, and social domains. At present, studies on the comparison between uni- and multidimensional frailty measures are limited.Objective: The aims of this paper were: 1) to compare the prevalence of frailty obtained using a uni- and a multidimensional measure; 2) to analyze differences in the functional status among individuals captured as frail or robust by the two measures; and 3) to investigate relations between the two frailty measures and disability.Methods: Two hundred and sixty-seven community-dwelling older adults (73.4±6 years old, 59.9% of women) participated in this cross-sectional study. The Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) index and the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) were used to measure frailty in a uni- and multidimensional way, respectively. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire, the Center of Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale, and the Loneliness Scale were administered to evaluate the functional status. Disability was assessed using the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale. Data were treated with descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance, correlations, and receiver operating characteristic analyses through the evaluation of the areas under the curve.Results: Results showed that frailty prevalence rate is strictly dependent on the index used (CHS =12.7%; TFI =44.6%). Furthermore, frail individuals presented differences in terms of functional status in all the domains. Frailty measures were significantly correlated with each other (r=0.483), and with disability (CHS: r=0.423; TFI: r=0.475). Finally, the area under the curve of the TFI (0.833) for disability was higher with respect to the one of CHS (0.770).Conclusion: Data reported here confirm that different instruments capture different frail individuals. Clinicians and researchers have to consider the different abilities of the two measures to detect frail individuals. Keywords: functional decline, older adults, health outcomes, active aging, indexes selection 
format article
author Roppolo M
Mulasso A
Gobbens RJ
Mosso CO
Rabaglietti E
author_facet Roppolo M
Mulasso A
Gobbens RJ
Mosso CO
Rabaglietti E
author_sort Roppolo M
title A comparison between uni- and multidimensional frailty measures: prevalence, functional status, and relationships with disability
title_short A comparison between uni- and multidimensional frailty measures: prevalence, functional status, and relationships with disability
title_full A comparison between uni- and multidimensional frailty measures: prevalence, functional status, and relationships with disability
title_fullStr A comparison between uni- and multidimensional frailty measures: prevalence, functional status, and relationships with disability
title_full_unstemmed A comparison between uni- and multidimensional frailty measures: prevalence, functional status, and relationships with disability
title_sort comparison between uni- and multidimensional frailty measures: prevalence, functional status, and relationships with disability
publisher Dove Medical Press
publishDate 2015
url https://doaj.org/article/804c1c39cd4e445bb61caf42d07556b0
work_keys_str_mv AT roppolom acomparisonbetweenuniandmultidimensionalfrailtymeasuresprevalencefunctionalstatusandrelationshipswithdisability
AT mulassoa acomparisonbetweenuniandmultidimensionalfrailtymeasuresprevalencefunctionalstatusandrelationshipswithdisability
AT gobbensrj acomparisonbetweenuniandmultidimensionalfrailtymeasuresprevalencefunctionalstatusandrelationshipswithdisability
AT mossoco acomparisonbetweenuniandmultidimensionalfrailtymeasuresprevalencefunctionalstatusandrelationshipswithdisability
AT rabagliettie acomparisonbetweenuniandmultidimensionalfrailtymeasuresprevalencefunctionalstatusandrelationshipswithdisability
AT roppolom comparisonbetweenuniandmultidimensionalfrailtymeasuresprevalencefunctionalstatusandrelationshipswithdisability
AT mulassoa comparisonbetweenuniandmultidimensionalfrailtymeasuresprevalencefunctionalstatusandrelationshipswithdisability
AT gobbensrj comparisonbetweenuniandmultidimensionalfrailtymeasuresprevalencefunctionalstatusandrelationshipswithdisability
AT mossoco comparisonbetweenuniandmultidimensionalfrailtymeasuresprevalencefunctionalstatusandrelationshipswithdisability
AT rabagliettie comparisonbetweenuniandmultidimensionalfrailtymeasuresprevalencefunctionalstatusandrelationshipswithdisability
_version_ 1718401560359206912