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
Introduction: Diagnosing dementia in people with severe/profound intellectual (and multiple) disabilities (SPI(M)D) is complex. Whereas existing dementia screening instruments as a whole are unsuitable for this population, a number of individual items may apply. Therefore, this study aimed to identify applicable items in existing dementia screening instruments. Methods: Informant interviews about 40 people with SPI(M)D were conducted to identify applicable items in the Dementia Scale for Down Syndrome, Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia in Down Syndrome II scale, Dementia Questionnaire for persons with Mental Retardation and Social competence Rating scale for people with Intellectual Disabilities. Results: Among 193 items, 101 items were found applicable, categorized in 5 domains: behavioral and psychological functioning (60 items), cognitive functioning (25), motor functioning (6), activities of daily living (5) and medical comorbidities (5). Conclusion: Identifying applicable items for people with SPI(M)D is an essential step in developing a dedicated dementia screening instrument for this population.
DOCUMENT
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
