Purpose: To examine the development of multidimensional frailty, including physical, psychological and socialcomponents, over a period of seven years. To determine the effects of sociodemographic factors (gender, age, marital status, education, income) on the development of frailty. Methods: : This longitudinal study was conducted in sample of 479 community-dwelling people aged ≥ 75 years living in the municipality of Roosendaal, the Netherlands. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), a self-report questionnaire, was used to collect data about frailty. Frailty was assessed annually. Results: : Frailty increased significantly over seven years among the people who completed the entire TFI all years (n = 121), the average score was 3.75 (SD 2.80) at baseline and 5.05 (SD 3.18) after seven years. Regarding frailty transitions, most participants remained unchanged from their baseline status. The transition from non-frail to frail was present in 8.3% to 12.6% of the participants and 5.1% to 10.7% made a transition from frail to nonfrail. Gender (woman), age (≥80 years), marital status (not married/cohabiting), high level of education, and incomes from €601-€1800 were significantly associated with a higher frailty score. Conclusion: : This study showed that multidimensional frailty, assessed with the TFI, increased among Dutch community-dwelling people aged ≥75 years using a follow-up of seven years. Gender, age, marital status, education, and income were associated with frailty transitions. These findings provide healthcare professionals clues to identify people at increased risk of frailty, and target interventions which aim to prevent or delay frailty and its adverse outcomes, such as disability and mortality.
Ageing potentially poses a threat to independent functioning of older adults. Although clinicians commonly focus on physical factors limiting Functional Independence (FI), it is likely that personal and environmental interactions also seem important to maintain FI. Herewith, FI exceeds several professional borders and calls for a uniform, multidisciplinary interdisciplinary supported definition of FI. This study aims to provide such a definition of FI in community dwelling older people. A scoping review was performed. Pubmed/Medline, Psychinfo and CINAHL were searched for studies describing aspects of FI. A literature-based definition of FI was discussed by experts (n = 7), resulting in a formulated final definition of FI and insight into contributing factors to FI. A multidisciplinairy focusgroup a stakeholder consultation (n = 15) ensured clinical relevance for daily practice. Data from the focusgroup stakeholder consultation were analyzed by using Atlas.ti (version 8). Based on the literature search, 25 studies were included. FI was finally defined as “Functioning physically safely and independent from another person, within one’s own context”. The contributing factors of FI comprised physical capacity combined with coping, empowerment and health literacy. Moreover, the level of FI is influenced by someone’s own context. This study confirms the relevance of the physical aspect of FI, but additionally stresses the importance of psychological factors. In addition, this study shows that one’s context may affect the level of FI as well. This underlines the importance of a holistic view and calls for multidisciplinary interdisciplinary collaboration in community-dwelling older people.
LINK
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.
