The aim of this study was to assess the predictive ability of the frailty phenotype (FP), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and frailty index (FI) for the outcomes mortality, hospitalization and increase in dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living ((I)ADL) among older persons. This prospective cohort study with 2-year follow-up included 2420 Dutch community-dwelling older people (65+, mean age 76.3±6.6 years, 39.5% male) who were pre-frail or frail according to the FP. Mortality data were obtained from Statistics Netherlands. All other data were self-reported. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) was calculated for each frailty instrument and outcome measure. The prevalence of frailty, sensitivity and specifcity were calculated using cutoff values proposed by the developers and cutoff values one above and one below the proposed ones (0.05 for FI). All frailty instruments poorly predicted mortality, hospitalization and (I)ADL dependency (AUCs between 0.62–0.65, 0.59–0.63 and 0.60–0.64, respectively). Prevalence estimates of frailty in this population varied between 22.2% (FP) and 64.8% (TFI). The FP and FI showed higher levels of specifcity, whereas sensitivity was higher for the GFI and TFI. Using a different cutoff point considerably changed the prevalence, sensitivity and specifcity. In conclusion, the predictive ability of the FP, GFI, TFI and FI was poor for all outcomes in a population of pre-frail and frail community-dwelling older people. The FP and the FI showed higher values of specifcity, whereas sensitivity was higher for the GFI and TFI.
Abstract Objective: To determine the associations between four validated multidimensional self-report frailty scales and nine indices of oral health in communitydwelling older persons. Materials and Methods: This pilot study was conducted in a sample of 208 older persons aged 70 years and older who visited two dental practices in the Netherlands. Frailty status was measured by four different self-report frailty questionnaires: Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Sunfrail Checklist (SC), and the Sherbrooke Postal Questionnaire (SPQ). Oral health was assessed by two calibrated examiners. Results: The prevalence of frailty according to the four frailty measures TFI, GFI, SC, and SPQ was 32.8%, 31.5%, 24.5%, and 49.7%, respectively. The SC correlated with four oral health variables (DMFT, number of teeth, percentage of occlusal contacts, Plaque Index), the TFI with three (number of teeth, percentage of occlusal contacts, Plaque Index), the GFI only with DPSI, and the SPQ with the number of teeth and the number of occlusal contacts. Conclusion: Of the studiedmultidimensional frailty scales, the SC and TFIwere correlated with most oral health variables (four and three, respectively). However, it should be noticed that these correlations were small. Clinical relevance: The SCand TFImight help to identify older people with risk of poor oral health so that preventive care can be used to ensure deterioration of oral health and maintenance of quality of life. Vice versa early detection of frailty by oral care professionals could contribute to interprofessional management of frailty.
Background: The population ageing in most Western countries leads to a larger number of frail older people. These frail people are at an increased risk of negative health outcomes, such as functional decline, falls, institutionalisation and mortality. Many approaches are available for identifying frailty among older people. Researchers most often use Fried and colleagues’ description of the frailty phenotype. The authors describe five physical criteria. Other researchers prefer a combination of measurements in the social, psychological and/or physical domains. The aim of this study is to describe the levels of social, psychological and physical functioning according to Fried’s frailty stages using a large cohort of Dutch community-dwelling older people. Methods: There were 8,684 community-dwelling older people (65+) who participated in this cross-sectional study. Based on the five Fried frailty criteria (weight loss, exhaustion, low physical activity, slowness, weakness), the participants were divided into three stages: non-frail (score 0), pre-frail (score 1–2) and frail (score 3–5). These stages were related to scores in the social (social network type, informal care use, loneliness), psychological (psychological distress, mastery, self-management) and physical (chronic diseases, GARS IADL-disability, OECD disability) domains. Results: 63.2 % of the participants was non-frail, 28.1 % pre-frail and 8.7 % frail. When comparing the three stages of frailty, frail people appeared to be older, were more likely to be female, were more often unmarried or living alone, and had a lower level of education compared to their pre-frail and non-frail counterparts. The difference between the scores in the social, psychological and physical domains were statistically significant between the three frailty stages. The most preferable scores came from the non-frail group, and least preferable scores were from the frail group. For example use of informal care: non-frail 3.9 %, pre-frail 23.8 %, frail 60.6 %, and GARS IADL-disability mean scores: non-frail 9.2, pre-frail 13.0, frail 19.7. Conclusion: When older people were categorised according to the three frailty stages, as described by Fried and colleagues, there were statistically significant differences in the level of social, psychological and physical functioning between the non-frail, pre-frail and frail persons. Non-frail participants had consistently more preferable scores compared to the frail participants. This indicated that the Fried frailty criteria could help healthcare professionals identify and treat frail older people in an efficient way, and provide indications for problems in other domains.
In het PRIMa mond CARE project wordt onderzocht in hoeverre de mondgezondheid bijdraagt aan de voorspelling van kwetsbaarheid bij thuiswondende ouderen.Doel Het doel van het PRIMa mond CARE project is te onderzoeken in hoeverre mondgezondheid bijdraagt aan de voorspelling van kwetsbaarheid bij thuiswonende ouderen. Resultaten Voor het onderzoek zijn 1202 ouderen geïncludeerd, waarvan 45% mannen. De gemiddelde leeftijd van de participanten was 73 jaar. De eerste resultaten laten verbanden zien tussen kwetsbaarheid en onderstaande gezondheidsfactoren: • het bezoeken van de tandarts voor een spoedconsult; • het ervaren van ongemakken in de mond; • het aanpassen van de voeding als gevolg van ongemakken in de mond en • het dragen van een gebitsprothese. De volgende artikelen over dit onderzoek zijn inmiddels gepubliceerd: 'Probing problems and priorities in oral health among community dwelling elderly in the Netherlands' in het International Journal of Health Sciences and Research. In het International Journal of Health Services is het artikel 'Needs in Sevice Provision for Older People: An comparison Between Greater Manchester (United Kingdom) and Utrecht (the Netherlands)' gepubliceerd. Recentelijk verscheen ‘’Measurement properties of oral health assessments for non-dental professionals in older people: a systematic review’’ in het BMC Geriatrics. Looptijd 01 november 2016 - 01 juli 2020 Aanpak De huisarts brengt met een softwareprogramma genaamd ‘’U-PRIM’’ de groep potentieel kwetsbare ouderen in kaart. De mensen uit deze screening komen in fase twee: U-CARE. Zij ontvangen een vragenlijst: de Groningen Frailty Indicator. Met de uitkomsten van de vragenlijsten worden de domeinen van kwetsbaarheid gedefinieerd. Deze mensen krijgen huisbezoek van een praktijkverpleegkundige die een zorgplan op maat maakt. De verpleegkundige screent tijdens dit bezoek de oudere ook op mondgezondheidsproblemen, naast de algemene gezondheidscontrole. Daarnaast zijn de gegevens uit het tandartsenbestand gekoppeld aan de gegevens van de huisarts. Ook zijn twee vragen over mondgezondheid toegevoegd aan de Groningen Frailty Indicator. Aan de deelnemers van het onderzoek is toestemming gevraagd om de tandartsgegevens op te vragen bij de tandarts en deze te koppelen aan de huisartsgegevens. Daarnaast zijn alle gegevens anoniem verwerkt.
