If brief and easy to use self report screening tools are available to identify frail elderly, this may avoid costs and unnecessary assessment of healthy people. This study investigates the predictive validity of three self-report instruments for identifying community-dwelling frail elderly.
DOCUMENT
Bij de richtlijn horen 1) een wetenschappelijke onderbouwing en 2) een samenvattingskaart. Deze richtlijn beoogt ggz-professionals - in het bijzonder verpleegkundigen - te ondersteunen bij de somatische screening op gezondheidsproblemen bij mensen met een ernstige psychische aandoening, en ondersteuning te bieden bij de planning en uitvoering van vervolgactiviteiten voor preventie en tijdige diagnostiek en behandeling van somatische problemen. Gerichte leefstijlinterventies kunnen risicofactoren voor bepaalde somatische aandoeningen gunstig beïnvloeden. De richtlijn richt zich op volwassen patiënten (18-65 jaar) met een ernstige psychische aandoening of een verhoogd risico. De aanbevelingen zijn ook toepasbaar voor de POH-ggz. Medeauteurs: Marieke van Piere, Maarten Bak, Merlijn Bakkenes, Digna van der Kellen, Sonja van Hamersveld, Ronald van Gool, Katie Dermout, Titia Feldmann, Anneriek Risseeuw, Anneke Wijtsma-van der Kolk, Ingrid van Vuuren, Matthijs Rümke, Evelyn Sloots-Jongen, Paul de Heij, Richard Starmans, Cilia Daatselaar, Christine van Veen en Marleen Hermens (Werkgroep Richtlijnontwikkeling Algemene somatische screening & Leefstijl)
MULTIFILE
Background: Due to differences in the definition of frailty, many different screening instruments have been developed. However, the predictive validity of these instruments among community-dwelling older people remains uncertain. Objective: To investigate whether combined (i.e. sequential or parallel) use of available frailty instruments improves the predictive power of dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living ((I)ADL), mortality and hospitalization. Design, setting and participants: A prospective cohort study with two-year followup was conducted among pre-frail and frail community-dwelling older people in the Netherlands. Measurements: Four combinations of two highly specific frailty instruments (Frailty Phenotype, Frailty Index) and two highly sensitive instruments (Tilburg Frailty Indicator, Groningen Frailty Indicator) were investigated. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for all single instruments as well as for the four combinations, sequential and parallel. Results: 2,420 individuals participated (mean age 76.3 ± 6.6 years, 60.5% female) in our study. Sequential use increased the levels of specificity, as expected, whereas the PPV hardly increased. Parallel use increased the levels of sensitivity, although the NPV hardly increased. Conclusions: Applying two frailty instruments sequential or parallel might not be a solution for achieving better predictions of frailty in community-dwelling older people. Our results show that the combination of different screening instruments does not improve predictive validity. However, as this is one of the first studies to investigate the combined use of screening instruments, we recommend further exploration of other combinations of instruments among other study populations.
DOCUMENT
