4.1 Article

Detection of the largest population susceptible to prescription of a program of exercises in Primary Care to prevent frailty

Journal

ATENCION PRIMARIA
Volume 51, Issue 3, Pages 135-141

Publisher

EDICIONES DOYMA S A
DOI: 10.1016/j.aprim.2017.11.005

Keywords

Physical exercise; Frailty; Primary health care; Community dwelling elderly

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: Identify the population over 70 year's old treated in primary care who should participate in a physical exercise program to prevent frailty. Analyze the concordance among 2 criteria to select the beneficiary population of the program. Design: Population-based cross-sectional study. Settings: Primary Care. Participants: Elderly over 70 years old, living in the Penagrande neighborhood (Fuencarral district of Madrid) from the Penagrande cohort, who accepted to participate in 2015 (n = 332). Main measurements: The main variable of the study is the need for exercise prescription in people over 70 years old at the Primary Care setting. It was identified through 2 different definitions: Prefrail (1-2 of 5 Fried criteria) and Independent individuals with physical performance limited, defined by Consensus on frailty and falls prevention among the elderly (independent and with a total SPPB score <10). Results: The 63,8% of participants (n = 196) need exercise prescription based on criteria defined by Fried and/or the consensus for prevention of frailty and falls in the elderly. In 82 cases the 2 criteria were met, 80 were prefrail with normal physical performance and 34 were robust with a limited physical performance. The concordance among both criteria is weak (kappa index 0, 27). Conclusion: Almost 2 thirds of the elderly have some kind of functional limitation. The criteria of the consensus document to prevent frailty detect half of the pre-frail individuals in the community. 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available