Ament Bart H L, de Vugt Marjolein E, Verhey Frans R J, Kempen Gertrudis I J M
Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Alzheimer Centre Limburg, MHeNS School for Mental Health and NeuroScience, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Eur J Ageing. 2014 Feb 19;11(3):213-219. doi: 10.1007/s10433-014-0308-x. eCollection 2014 Sep.
Frailty is considered a predictor for negative outcomes such as disability, decreased quality of life, and hospital admission. Frailty measures have been developed that include different dimensions. We examined whether people who are physically frail are more at risk for negative outcomes of frailty if they also suffer from psychological, cognitive, or social frailty. Frailty was measured at baseline by means of the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), which comprises a physical, cognitive, social, and psychological dimension. Only frail persons were included in the study (GFI ≥ 5) that, in addition, had to be frail in the physical dimension (i.e., ≥1 on this dimension). IADL disability and quality of life were measured at baseline and at 12 months. Hospital admission was assessed during this period. In this, physically frail sample effects of the other three frailty dimensions were studied in regression models. The sample ( = 334, mean age 78.1, and range 70-92) included 40.1 % frail men and 59.9 % frail women. Overall, no additional effects for the cognitive, social, or psychosocial dimensions were found: other frailty dimensions did not have an additional impact on disability, quality of life, or hospital admission in people who already suffered from physical frailty. Higher scores of physical frailty were significantly related to IADL disability ( < 0.05) and hospital admission ( < 0.05). Additional analysis showed that the physical frailty score predicted IADL disability and hospital admission better than the GFI overall score. Results of this study suggest that persons, who are physically frail, according to the GFI, are not more at risk for negative outcomes of frailty (i.e., IADL disability, decreased quality of life, and hospital admission) if they in addition suffer from cognitive, social, or psychological frailty. In addition, for the prediction of IADL disability or hospital admission, the focus for screening should be on the physical frailty score instead of the GFI overall score including different dimensions.
衰弱被认为是残疾、生活质量下降和住院等负面结果的一个预测指标。已经开发出了包括不同维度的衰弱测量方法。我们研究了身体衰弱的人如果同时患有心理、认知或社会衰弱,是否更易出现衰弱的负面结果。在基线时通过格罗宁根衰弱指标(GFI)测量衰弱,该指标包括身体、认知、社会和心理维度。本研究仅纳入衰弱者(GFI≥5),此外还必须在身体维度上衰弱(即该维度得分≥1)。在基线和12个月时测量日常生活活动能力(IADL)残疾和生活质量。在此期间评估住院情况。在这个身体衰弱的样本中,在回归模型中研究了其他三个衰弱维度的影响。样本(n = 334,平均年龄78.1岁,范围70 - 92岁)包括40.1%的衰弱男性和59.9%的衰弱女性。总体而言,未发现认知、社会或心理社会维度有额外影响:其他衰弱维度对已患有身体衰弱的人的残疾、生活质量或住院情况没有额外影响。身体衰弱得分越高与IADL残疾(P < 0.05)和住院(P < 0.05)显著相关。进一步分析表明,身体衰弱得分比GFI总分能更好地预测IADL残疾和住院情况。本研究结果表明,根据GFI标准身体衰弱的人,如果同时患有认知、社会或心理衰弱,并不更易出现衰弱的负面结果(即IADL残疾、生活质量下降和住院)。此外,对于预测IADL残疾或住院情况,筛查的重点应放在身体衰弱得分上,而非包括不同维度的GFI总分。