Psychometric properties of multicomponent tools designed to assess frailty in older adults: A systematic review

BMC Geriatrics

Research Article

Stephanie Daley¹  Jennifer L. Sutton²  Aine M. Butler²  Rebecca L. Gould²  Robert J. Howard³  Stephen P. Nunn⁴  Emma V. Ward⁴  Mark C. Coulson⁴ 

[1] Centre for Dementia Studies, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, East Sussex, UK;Department of Old Age Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, Box PO70, De Crespigny Park, SE5 8AF, London, UK;Department of Old Age Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, Box PO70, De Crespigny Park, SE5 8AF, London, UK;Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK;Department of Psychology, School of Science and Technology, Middlesex University, London, UK;

关键词: Frailty;    Assessment;    Older adults;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12877-016-0225-2

 received in 2015-08-27, accepted in 2016-02-12,  发布年份 2016

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundFrailty is widely recognised as a distinct multifactorial clinical syndrome that implies vulnerability. The links between frailty and adverse outcomes such as death and institutionalisation have been widely evidenced. There is currently no gold standard frailty assessment tool; optimizing the assessment of frailty in older people therefore remains a research priority. The objective of this systematic review is to identify existing multi-component frailty assessment tools that were specifically developed to assess frailty in adults aged ≥60 years old and to systematically and critically evaluate the reliability and validity of these tools.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted using the standardised COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist to assess the methodological quality of included studies.ResultsFive thousand sixty-three studies were identified in total: 73 of which were included for review. 38 multi-component frailty assessment tools were identified: Reliability and validity data were available for 21 % (8/38) of tools. Only 5 % (2/38) of the frailty assessment tools had evidence of reliability and validity that was within statistically significant parameters and of fair-excellent methodological quality (the Frailty Index-Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment [FI-CGA] and the Tilburg Frailty Indicator [TFI]).ConclusionsThe TFI has the most robust evidence of reliability and validity and has been the most extensively examined in terms of psychometric properties. However, there is insufficient evidence at present to determine the best tool for use in research and clinical practice. Further in-depth evaluation of the psychometric properties of these tools is required before they can fulfil the criteria for a gold standard assessment tool.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Sutton et al. 2016