11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Performance of E-Health Devices for Frailty Evaluation in Real-Life Settings Is Far from Being Demonstrated

      letter
      a , b , * , b
      Gerontology
      S. Karger AG

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Gait velocity as a single predictor of adverse events in healthy seniors aged 75 years and older.

          Although gait velocity (GV) measurement could predict poor outcomes, few studies regarding its usefulness as a single test in well functioning elderly persons have been pursued. The aim of this study was to asses whether GV could be sufficient to predict adverse events such as hospitalization for any cause, requirement for a caregiver, nursing home placement, falls, fractures, or death in healthy elderly persons. Ours was a cohort study comprising 102 well functioning participants aged 75 and older. Demographic features, health status, and functional capacity were assessed at baseline and followed for adverse outcomes. Measurements included evaluation of cognition, activities of daily living, and mobility. The time required to walk the middle 8 meters of 10 meters was defined as GV. Three GV groups were distinguished: high GV (>1.1 m/s), median GV (1-0.7 m/s), and low GV (<0.7 m/s). At baseline, the three groups were comparable in their health status with an average age of 79.6 +/- 4 years. At 24 months, the low GV group had a significantly higher incidence of adverse events than did the other groups. Low GV was a predictor of hospitalization (relative risk [RR] = 5.9, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-8.5), requirement of a caregiver (RR = 9.5, 95% CI, 1.3-2.5), and new falls (RR = 5.4, 95% CI, 2.0-4.3). These associations remained significant after a multiple logistic regression analysis. GV measurement in the ambulatory setting may allow the detection of healthy elderly people at risk for adverse events. These data may suggest that simple assessment of GV is enough to predict adverse events in well functioning older persons.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Personalised perioperative care by e-health after intermediate-grade abdominal surgery: a multicentre, single-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A Self-Reported Screening Tool for Detecting Community-Dwelling Older Persons with Frailty Syndrome in the Absence of Mobility Disability: The FiND Questionnaire

              Background The “frailty syndrome” (a geriatric multidimensional condition characterized by decreased reserve and diminished resistance to stressors) represents a promising target of preventive interventions against disability in elders. Available screening tools for the identification of frailty in the absence of disability present major limitations. In particular, they have to be administered by a trained assessor, require special equipment, and/or do not discriminate between frail and disabled individuals. Aim of this study is to verify the agreement of a novel self-reported questionnaire (the “Frail Non-Disabled” [FiND] instrument) designed for detecting non-mobility disabled frail older persons with results from reference tools. Methodology/Principal Findings Data are from 45 community-dwelling individuals aged ≥60 years. Participants were asked to complete the FiND questionnaire separately exploring the frailty and disability domains. Then, a blinded assessor objectively measured the frailty status (using the phenotype proposed by Fried and colleagues) and mobility disability (using the 400-meter walk test). Cohen's kappa coefficients were calculated to determine the agreement between the FiND questionnaire with the reference instruments. Mean age of participants (women 62.2%) was 72.5 (standard deviation 8.2) years. Seven (15.6%) participants presented mobility disability as being unable to complete the 400-meter walk test. According to the frailty phenotype criteria, 25 (55.6%) participants were pre-frail or frail, and 13 (28.9%) were robust. Overall, a substantial agreement of the instrument with the reference tools (kappa = 0.748, quadratic weighted kappa = 0.836, both p values<0.001) was reported with only 7 (15.6%) participants incorrectly categorized. The agreement between results of the FiND disability domain and the 400-meter walk test was excellent (kappa = 0.920, p<0.001). Conclusions/Significance The FiND questionnaire presents a very good capacity to correctly identify frail older persons without mobility disability living in the community. This screening tool may represent an opportunity for diffusing awareness about frailty and disability and supporting specific preventive campaigns.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                GER
                Gerontology
                10.1159/issn.0304-324X
                Gerontology
                S. Karger AG
                0304-324X
                1423-0003
                2019
                April 2019
                18 February 2019
                : 65
                : 3
                : 309-310
                Affiliations
                [_a] aGérontopôle, University Hospital of Toulouse, Toulouse, France
                [_b] bOregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
                Author notes
                *Antoine Piau, Cité de la Santé, University Hospital of Toulouse, 24 rue du pont St. Pierre, FR–31059 Toulouse (France), E-Mail piau.a@chu-toulouse.fr
                Article
                495208 Gerontology 2019;65:309–310
                10.1159/000495208
                30783068
                82a5e337-211a-40e4-95fd-f49291971df8
                © 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                : 01 November 2018
                : 07 November 2018
                Page count
                Pages: 2
                Categories
                Technological Section / Letter to the Editor

                Oncology & Radiotherapy,Geriatric medicine,Cardiovascular Medicine,Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry,Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article