Feasibility and acceptability of commonly used screening instruments to identify frailty among community-dwelling older people: a mixed methods study.


Journal

BMC geriatrics
ISSN: 1471-2318
Titre abrégé: BMC Geriatr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968548

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
22 04 2020
Historique:
received: 27 08 2019
accepted: 05 04 2020
entrez: 24 4 2020
pubmed: 24 4 2020
medline: 15 12 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Frailty exposes older people to an elevated risk of a range of negative outcomes. Emerging evidence that frailty can be effectively treated within community settings has stimulated calls for more proactive screening within primary care. Assessing feasibility is a critical preliminary step in assessing the efficacy of interventions such as screening. However, few studies have explored the feasibility and acceptability of administering frailty screening instruments within general practice, and even fewer have incorporated patient perspectives. Our study had three objectives: To 1) assess overall feasibility of the instruments (completion time and rate); 2) assess patient acceptability towards the instruments; and 3) assess the feasibility and acceptability of the instruments to administering nurses. The feasibility and acceptability of several frailty screening instruments (PRISMA-7, Edmonton Frail Scale, FRAIL Scale Questionnaire, Gait Speed, Groningen Frailty Indicator, Reported Edmonton Frail Scale and Kihon Checklist) was explored within the context of a larger diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) study. Completion time and rate was collected for all participants (N = 243). A sub-sample of patients (n = 30) rated each instrument for ease of completion and provided comment on perceived acceptability. Lastly, five of six administering nurses involved in the DTA study participated in semi-structured face-to-face interviews, rating the instruments against several feasibility and acceptability criteria (time, space, equipment, skill required to implement, acceptability to patients and nurses, ease of scoring) and providing comment on their responses. The PRISMA-7 returned the highest overall feasibility and acceptability, requiring minimal space, equipment, skills and time to implement, and returning the fastest completion rate and highest patient and nurse acceptability rating. All screening instruments were faster to implement than the two reference standards (Fried's Frailty Phenotype and Frailty Index). Self-administered instruments were subject to lower rates of completion than nurse-administered instruments. This study has demonstrated that a number of commonly used frailty screening instruments are potentially feasible for implementation within general practice. Ultimately, more research is needed to determine how contextual factors, such as differences in individual patient and clinician preferences, setting and system factors, impact on the feasibility of screening in practice.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Frailty exposes older people to an elevated risk of a range of negative outcomes. Emerging evidence that frailty can be effectively treated within community settings has stimulated calls for more proactive screening within primary care. Assessing feasibility is a critical preliminary step in assessing the efficacy of interventions such as screening. However, few studies have explored the feasibility and acceptability of administering frailty screening instruments within general practice, and even fewer have incorporated patient perspectives. Our study had three objectives: To 1) assess overall feasibility of the instruments (completion time and rate); 2) assess patient acceptability towards the instruments; and 3) assess the feasibility and acceptability of the instruments to administering nurses.
METHODS
The feasibility and acceptability of several frailty screening instruments (PRISMA-7, Edmonton Frail Scale, FRAIL Scale Questionnaire, Gait Speed, Groningen Frailty Indicator, Reported Edmonton Frail Scale and Kihon Checklist) was explored within the context of a larger diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) study. Completion time and rate was collected for all participants (N = 243). A sub-sample of patients (n = 30) rated each instrument for ease of completion and provided comment on perceived acceptability. Lastly, five of six administering nurses involved in the DTA study participated in semi-structured face-to-face interviews, rating the instruments against several feasibility and acceptability criteria (time, space, equipment, skill required to implement, acceptability to patients and nurses, ease of scoring) and providing comment on their responses.
RESULTS
The PRISMA-7 returned the highest overall feasibility and acceptability, requiring minimal space, equipment, skills and time to implement, and returning the fastest completion rate and highest patient and nurse acceptability rating. All screening instruments were faster to implement than the two reference standards (Fried's Frailty Phenotype and Frailty Index). Self-administered instruments were subject to lower rates of completion than nurse-administered instruments.
CONCLUSIONS
This study has demonstrated that a number of commonly used frailty screening instruments are potentially feasible for implementation within general practice. Ultimately, more research is needed to determine how contextual factors, such as differences in individual patient and clinician preferences, setting and system factors, impact on the feasibility of screening in practice.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32321431
doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01551-6
pii: 10.1186/s12877-020-01551-6
pmc: PMC7178952
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

152

Subventions

Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council
ID : 1102208
Pays : International

Références

BMJ. 2018 Aug 28;362:k3349
pubmed: 30154082
J Nutr Health Aging. 2009 Dec;13(10):881-9
pubmed: 19924348
Br J Gen Pract. 2009 May;59(562):e177-82
pubmed: 19401013
Health Rep. 2013 Sep;24(9):10-7
pubmed: 24258362
Arch Public Health. 2015 Apr 10;73(1):19
pubmed: 25866625
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019 Mar 20;5:48
pubmed: 30923629
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017 Oct;65(10):2134-2139
pubmed: 28422280
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017 Mar 07;6(7):377-382
pubmed: 28812833
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2015 Apr;15(4):518-9
pubmed: 25828791
J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2009;32(2):46-9
pubmed: 20039582
J Frailty Aging. 2018;7(2):127-133
pubmed: 29741198
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013 Jun;14(6):392-7
pubmed: 23764209
BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 3;7(8):e016663
pubmed: 28775191
Age Ageing. 2014 Nov;43(6):744-7
pubmed: 25336440
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 May 31;18(1):395
pubmed: 29855306
Age Ageing. 2006 Sep;35(5):526-9
pubmed: 16757522
Australas J Ageing. 2009 Dec;28(4):182-8
pubmed: 19951339
Eur J Gen Pract. 2014 Jun;20(2):107-13
pubmed: 24224607
BMC Med. 2012 Jan 11;10:4
pubmed: 22236397
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006 Jun;54(6):975-9
pubmed: 16776795
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016 Dec 1;17(12):1163.e1-1163.e17
pubmed: 27886869
Eur J Intern Med. 2016 Jun;31:3-10
pubmed: 27039014
Aust J Gen Pract. 2019 Jul;48(7):426-433
pubmed: 31256509
BMC Fam Pract. 2013 Jun 19;14:86
pubmed: 23782891
Res Nurs Health. 2008 Apr;31(2):180-91
pubmed: 18183564
Age Ageing. 2013 Mar;42(2):262-5
pubmed: 23108163
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2008 Jul-Aug;47(1):9-18
pubmed: 17723247
Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2019 May 15;5:2333721419848153
pubmed: 31192278
OTJR (Thorofare N J). 2015 Jul;35(3):169-77
pubmed: 26594739
ScientificWorldJournal. 2001 Aug 08;1:323-36
pubmed: 12806071
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016 Mar 1;17(3):188-92
pubmed: 26805753
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014 Feb;15(2):141-2
pubmed: 24405640
Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2018 Apr;51(3):282-292
pubmed: 28795247
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007 Jul;62(7):731-7
pubmed: 17634320
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2017 Oct;15(10):2464-2468
pubmed: 29035957
BMC Fam Pract. 2016 Aug 03;17:102
pubmed: 27488562
Age Ageing. 2016 May;45(3):353-60
pubmed: 26944937
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001 Mar;56(3):M146-56
pubmed: 11253156
Medsurg Nurs. 2008 Dec;17(6):411-2
pubmed: 19248407
J Nutr Health Aging. 2012 Jul;16(7):601-8
pubmed: 22836700
Age Ageing. 2015 Jan;44(1):148-52
pubmed: 25355618
Aging Ment Health. 2017 Oct;21(10):1031-1039
pubmed: 27267783
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2019 May;31(5):653-660
pubmed: 30132204
Implement Sci. 2013 Oct 24;8:125
pubmed: 24153049
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2017 Jul 20;4:23
pubmed: 28748106
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Jul 1;18(7):564-575
pubmed: 28648901
Age Ageing. 2017 Sep 1;46(5):840-845
pubmed: 28541400
Aust J Rural Health. 2018 Dec;26(6):449-450
pubmed: 30444285

Auteurs

Rachel C Ambagtsheer (RC)

National Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence in Trans-Disciplinary Frailty Research to Achieve Healthy Ageing, Adelaide, Australia. rambagtsheer@laureate.net.au.
Torrens University Australia, GPO Box 2025, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia. rambagtsheer@laureate.net.au.

Mandy M Archibald (MM)

National Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence in Trans-Disciplinary Frailty Research to Achieve Healthy Ageing, Adelaide, Australia.
College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
College of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Michael Lawless (M)

National Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence in Trans-Disciplinary Frailty Research to Achieve Healthy Ageing, Adelaide, Australia.
College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.

Alison Kitson (A)

National Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence in Trans-Disciplinary Frailty Research to Achieve Healthy Ageing, Adelaide, Australia.
College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.

Justin Beilby (J)

National Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence in Trans-Disciplinary Frailty Research to Achieve Healthy Ageing, Adelaide, Australia.
Torrens University Australia, GPO Box 2025, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH