4.6 Article

Clinical global impression of change in physical frailty: Development of a measure based on clinical judgment

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 52, 期 9, 页码 1560-1566

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52423.x

关键词

frailty; clinical global impression of change; measurement; aging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To expand the ability to assess physical frailty by developing a Clinical Global Impression of Change in Physical Frailty (CGIC-PF) instrument. Design: Qualitative and quantitative instrument development. Setting: Academic centers. Participants: Six expert panel members, 46 clinicians, 24 patients, and 12 caregivers. Measurements: Literature review and structured group processes with experts, clinicians, and consumers were used to generate an initial list of domains and indicators. Structured interviews with clinical experts in the area of frailty were used to establish relevance and feasibility of measurement of domains. Interrater reliability was assessed through a Web-based study. Geriatricians pilot tested the feasibility of the baseline CGIC-PF with 10 patients. Results: The CGIC-PF includes six intrinsic domains (mobility, balance, strength, endurance, nutrition, and neuromotor performance) and seven consequences domains (medical complexity, healthcare utilization, appearance, self-perceived health, activities of daily living, emotional status, and social status). Each domain has two to four clinical indicators. Change is scored on a 7-point scale from markedly worse to markedly improved. Average interrater reliability of the CGIC-PF for the Web-based cases was 0.97. Geriatricians completed a baseline CGIC-PF on their own patients in 10 minutes or less. Conclusion: The CGIC-PF is a structured assessment of change in physical frailty with defined content and process. It has strong face validity, reliability, and feasibility for use in clinical research. It may be useful as one criterion of change and as an anchor for change in other measures.

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