4.6 Article

Construct validity and reliability of a two-step tool for the identification of frail older people in primary care

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 67, 期 2, 页码 176-183

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.008

关键词

Frailty; Elderly; Assessment; Construct; Reliability; Family physician

资金

  1. Dutch National Care for the Elderly Program [60-61900-98-217]
  2. ZonMw, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To study the reliability and construct validity of the EASY-Care Two-step Older persons Screening (EASY-Care TOS), a practice-based tool that helps family physicians (FPs) to identify their frail older patients. Study Design and Setting: This validation study was conducted in six FP practices. We determined the construct validity by comparing the results of the EASY-Care TOS with other commonly used frailty constructs [Fried Frailty Criteria (FFC), Frailty Index (FI)] and with other related constructs (ie, multimorbidity, disability, cognition, mobility, mental well-being, and social context). To determine interrater reliability, an independent second EASY-Care TOS assessment was made for a subpopulation. Results: We included 587 older patients (mean age 77 +/- 5 years, 56% women). According to EASY-Care TOS, 39.4% of patients were frail. EASY-Care TOS frailty correlated better with FI frailty (0.63) than with FFC frailty (0.52). A high correlation was found with multimorbidity (0.50), disabilities (0.53), and mobility (0.55) and a moderate correlation with cognition (0.31) and mental well-being (0.38). Reliability testing showed 89% agreement (Cohen's kappa 0.63) between EASY-Care TOS frailty judgment by two different assessments. Conclusion: EASY-Care TOS correlated well with relevant physical and psychosocial measures. Accordingly, these results show that the EASY-Care TOS identifies patients who have a wide spectrum of interacting problems. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据