PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of bmcphBioMed Centralsearchsubmit a manuscriptregisterthis articleBMC Public Health
 
BMC Public Health. 2012; 12: 69.
Published online Jan 23, 2012. doi:  10.1186/1471-2458-12-69
PMCID: PMC3293057
The predictive validity of three self-report screening instruments for identifying frail older people in the community
Ramon Daniels,corresponding author1,2,3,4 Erik van Rossum,2,3,4 Anna Beurskens,2,4 Wim van den Heuvel,4,5 and Luc de Witte3,4
1Faculty of Health and Care, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, PO Box 550, 6400 AN Heerlen, The Netherlands
2Centre of Research on Autonomy and Participation, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, PO Box 550, 6400 AN Heerlen, The Netherlands
3Centre of Research on Technology in Care, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, PO Box 550, 6400 AN Heerlen, The Netherlands
4School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
5University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 30, 0019700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
corresponding authorCorresponding author.
Ramon Daniels: ramon.daniels/at/zuyd.nl; Erik van Rossum: erik.vanrossum/at/zuyd.nl; Anna Beurskens: sandra.beurskens/at/zuyd.nl; Wim van den Heuvel: heuvelwim/at/hotmail.com; Luc de Witte: luc.dewitte/at/zuyd.nl
Received April 19, 2011; Accepted January 23, 2012.
Abstract
Background
If brief and easy to use self report screening tools are available to identify frail elderly, this may avoid costs and unnecessary assessment of healthy people. This study investigates the predictive validity of three self-report instruments for identifying community-dwelling frail elderly.
Methods
This is a prospective study with 1-year follow-up among community-dwelling elderly aged 70 or older (n = 430) to test sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predicted values of the Groningen Frailty Indicator, Tilburg Frailty Indicator and Sherbrooke Postal Questionnaire on development of disabilities, hospital admission and mortality. Odds ratios were calculated to compare frail versus non-frail groups for their risk for the adverse outcomes.
Results
Adjusted odds ratios show that those identified as frail have more than twice the risk (GFI, 2.62; TFI, 2.00; SPQ, 2,49) for developing disabilities compared to the non-frail group; those identified as frail by the TFI and SPQ have more than twice the risk of being admitted to a hospital. Sensitivity and specificity for development of disabilities are 71% and 63% (GFI), 62% and 71% (TFI) and 83% and 48% (SPQ). Regarding mortality, sensitivity for all tools are about 70% and specificity between 41% and 61%. For hospital admission, SPQ scores the highest for sensitivity (76%).
Conclusion
All three instruments do have potential to identify older persons at risk, but their predictive power is not sufficient yet. Further research on these and other instruments is needed to improve targeting frail elderly.
Articles from BMC Public Health are provided here courtesy of
BioMed Central