4.6 Article

Cognitive frailty in Italian community-dwelling older adults: Prevalence rate and its association with disability

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION HEALTH & AGING
卷 21, 期 6, 页码 631-636

出版社

SPRINGER FRANCE
DOI: 10.1007/s12603-016-0828-5

关键词

Cognitive frailty; cognitive decline; physical frailty; disability; Italian older adults

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cognitive frailty is the simultaneous clinical manifestation of both physical frailty and cognitive impairment. This paper aimed to propose and test an operational definition of cognitive frailty. The following specific aims were pursued: (i) to rate the prevalence of cognitive frailty; (ii) to evaluate differences in cognitive functioning among robust, pre-frail, and frail individuals; (iii) to examine the association of cognitive frailty with disability, in a sample of Italian community-dwelling older adults. Five hundred and ninety-four older adults (mean age 73.6 years, SD=5.8) were involved in this cross-sectional study. Cognitive frailty was operationalized using the Mini Mental State Examination (cut-off score equal or less than 25) for the evaluation of cognitive functions and the five criteria of the Cardiovascular Health Study (cut-off score equal or higher than 3) for the evaluation of physical frailty. Participants positive for both instruments were classified as cognitively frail. The outcome was disability measured with the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale. Descriptive statistics, one-way and two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were carried out. The prevalence rate of cognitive frailty was 4.4%. The one-way ANCOVA, controlling for age and gender, showed a significant difference (p <.001) among robust, pre-frail, and frail participants for the cognitive functioning. Moreover, cognitively frail individuals showed a difference (p <.001) in disability in comparison with non-frail participants. Our results are significant and provide empirical evidence about the usefulness of the cognitive frailty concept.

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