Zoekresultaten
Volg ons op
Volg ons op
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.
DOCUMENT
Een meetinstrument voor wijkverpleegkundigen bij het in kaart brengen van de situatie van kwetsbare ouderen is de Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI). In het project is op basis van de TFI door studenten in hun afstudeerproject een aantal verpleegkundige interventies beschreven. Deze zijn bewerkt tot handige kaartjes: Algemeen, Angst, Dementie, Mobiliteit, Ondervoeding, Horen en Zien, Sociale Contacten en Steun en Depressie.
DOCUMENT
Frailty in older adults is an increasing burden for public health, both globally as well as in The Netherlands. To focus on frailty prevention from a public health perspective, a clear understanding of frailty prevalence is needed.
DOCUMENT
Objective: The Tilburg Frailty Instrument (TFI) is an instrument for assessing frailty in community-dwelling older people. Since its development, many studies have been carried out examining the psychometric properties. The aim of this study was to provide a review of the main findings with regard to the reliability and validity of the TFI. Methods: We conducted a literature search in the PubMed and CINAHL databases on May 30, 2020. An inclusion criterion was the use of the entire TFI, part B, referring to the 15 components. No restrictions were placed on language or year of publication. Results: In total, 27 studies reported about the psychometric properties of the TFI. By far, most of the studies (n = 25) were focused on community-dwelling older people. Many studies showed that the internal consistency and test–retest reliability are good, which also applies for the criterion and construct validity. In many studies, adverse outcomes of interest were disability, increased health-care utilization, lower quality of life, and mortality. Regarding disability, studies predominantly show results that are excellent, with an area under the curve (AUC) >0.80. In addition, the TFI showed good associations with lower quality of life and the findings concerning mortality were at least acceptable. However, the association of the TFI with some indicators of health-care utilization can be indicated as poor (eg, visits to a general practitioner, hospitalization). Conclusion: Since population aging is occurring all over the world, it is important that the TFI is available and well known that it is a user-friendly instrument for assessing frailty and its psychometric properties being qualified as good. The findings of this assessment can support health-care professionals in selecting interventions to reduce frailty and delay its adverse outcomes, such as disability and lower quality of life.
DOCUMENT
Abstract: Nurses come into frequent contact with frail older people in all healthcare settings. However, few studies have specifically asked nurses about their views on frailty. The main aim of this study was to explore the opinions of nurses working with older people on the concept of frailty, regardless of the care setting. In addition, the associations between the background characteristics of nurses and their opinions about frailty were examined. In 2021, members of professional association of nurses and nursing assistants in the Netherlands (V&VN) received a digital questionnaire asking their opinions on frailty, and 251 individuals completed the questionnaire (response rate of 32.1%). The questionnaire contained seven topics: keywords of frailty, frailty domains, causes of frailty, consequences of frailty, reversing frailty, the prevention of frailty, and addressing frailty. Regarding frailty, nurses especially thought of physical deterioration and dementia. However, other domains of human functioning, such as the social and psychological domains, were often mentioned, pointing to a holistic approach to frailty. It also appears that nurses can identify many causes and consequences of frailty. They see opportunities to reverse frailty and an important role for themselves in this process.
DOCUMENT
ABSTRACT Objective: To examine the associations between individual chronic diseases and multidimensional frailty comprising physical, psychological, and social frailty. Methods: Dutch individuals (N = 47,768) age ≥ 65 years completed a general health questionnaire sent by the Public Health Services (response rate of 58.5 %), including data concerning self-reported chronic diseases, multidimensional frailty, and sociodemographic characteristics. Multidimensional frailty was assessed with the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI). Total frailty and each frailty domain were regressed onto background characteristics and the six most prevalent chronic diseases: diabetes mellitus, cancer, hypertension, arthrosis, urinary incontinence, and severe back disorder. Multimorbidity was defined as the presence of combinations of these six diseases. Results: The six chronic diseases had medium and strong associations with total ((f2 = 0.122) and physical frailty (f2 = 0.170), respectively, and weak associations with psychological (f2 = 0.023) and social frailty (f2 = 0.008). The effects of the six diseases on the frailty variables differed strongly across diseases, with urinary incontinence and severe back disorder impairing frailty most. No synergetic effects were found; the effects of a disease on frailty did not get noteworthy stronger in the presence of another disease. Conclusions: Chronic diseases, in particular urinary incontinence and severe back disorder, were associated with frailty. We thus recommend assigning different weights to individual chronic diseases in a measure of multimorbidity that aims to examine effects of multimorbidity on multidimensional frailty. Because there were no synergetic effects of chronic diseases, the measure does not need to include interactions between diseases.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Purpose: This study aimed to establish which determinants had an effect on frailty among acutely admitted patients, where frailty was identified at discharge. In particular, our study focused on associations of sex with frailty. Methods: A cross-sectional study was designed using a sample of 1267 people aged 65 years or older. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), a user-friendly self-report questionnaire was used to measure multidimensional frailty (physical, psychological, social) and determinants of frailty (sex, age, marital status, education, income, lifestyle, life events, multimorbidity). Results: The mean age of the participants was 76.8 years (SD 7.5; range 65-100). The bivariate regression analyses showed that all determinants were associated with total and physical frailty, and six determinants were associated with psychological and social frailty. Using multiple linear regression analyses, the explained variances differed from 3.5% (psychological frailty) to 20.1% (social frailty), with p values < 0.001. Of the independent variables age, income, lifestyle, life events, and multimorbidity were associated with three frailty variables, after controlling for all the other variables in the model. At the level of both frailty domains and components, females appeared to be more frail than men. Conclusion: The present study showed that sociodemographic characteristics (sex, age, marital status, education, income), lifestyle, life events, and multimorbidity had a different effect on total frailty and its domains (physical, psychological, social) in a sample of acute admitted patients.
LINK
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.
DOCUMENT
Abstract The aim of this cross-sectional study was to develop a Frailty at Risk Scale (FARS) incorporating ten well-known determinants of frailty: age, sex, marital status, ethnicity, education, income, lifestyle, multimorbidity, life events, and home living environment. In addition, a second aim was to develop an online calculator that can easily support healthcare professionals in determining the risk of frailty among community-dwelling older people. The FARS was developed using data of 373 people aged ≥ 75 years. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) was used for assessing frailty. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the determinants multimorbidity, unhealthy lifestyle, and ethnicity (ethnic minority) were the most important predictors. The area under the curve (AUC) of the model was 0.811 (optimism 0.019, 95% bootstrap CI = −0.029; 0.064). The FARS is offered on a Web site, so that it can be easily used by healthcare professionals, allowing quick intervention in promoting quality of life among community-dwelling older people.
DOCUMENT
Objective: To predict mortality with the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) in a sample of community-dwelling older people, using a follow-up of 7 years. Setting and Participants: 479 Dutch community-dwelling people aged 75 years or older. Measurements: The TFI, a self-report questionnaire, was used to collect data about total, physical, psychological, and social frailty. The municipality of Roosendaal (a town in the Netherlands) provided the mortality dates. Conclusions and Implications: This study has shown the predictive validity of the TFI for mortality in community-dwelling older people. Our study demonstrated that physical and psychological frailty predicted mortality. Of the individual TFI components, difficulty in walking consistently predicted mortality. For identifying frailty, using the integral instrument is recommended because total, physical, psychological, and social frailty and its components have proven their value in predicting adverse outcomes of frailty, for example, increase in health care use and a lower quality of life.
MULTIFILE
