BACKGROUND: Physical activity is assumed to be important in the prevention and treatment of frailty. It is unclear, however, to what extent frailty can be influenced because instruments designed to assess frailty have not been validated as evaluative outcome instruments in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were: (1) to develop a frailty index (i.e., the evaluative frailty index for physical activity [EFIP]) based on the method of deficit accumulation and (2) to test the clinimetric properties of the EFIP. DESIGN: The content of the EFIP was determined using a written Delphi procedure. Intrarater reliability, interrater reliability, and construct validity were determined in an observational study (n=24). METHOD: Intrarater reliability and interrater reliability were calculated using Cohen kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Construct validity was determined by correlating the score on the EFIP with those on the timed "up & go" test (TUG), the performance-oriented mobility assessment (POMA), and the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G). RESULTS: Fifty items were included in the EFIP. Interrater reliability (Cohen kappa=0.72, ICC=.96) and intrarater reliability (Cohen kappa=0.77 and 0.80, ICC=.93 and .98) were good. As expected, a fair to moderate correlation with the TUG, POMA, and CIRS-G was found (.61, -.70, and .66, respectively). LIMITATIONS: Reliability and validity of the EFIP have been tested in a small sample. These and other clinimetric properties, such as responsiveness, will be assessed or reassessed in a larger study population. CONCLUSION: The EFIP is a reliable and valid instrument to evaluate the effect of physical activity on frailty in research and in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Physical activity is assumed to be important in the prevention and treatment of frailty. It is unclear, however, to what extent frailty can be influenced because instruments designed to assess frailty have not been validated as evaluative outcome instruments in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were: (1) to develop a frailty index (i.e., the evaluative frailty index for physical activity [EFIP]) based on the method of deficit accumulation and (2) to test the clinimetric properties of the EFIP. DESIGN: The content of the EFIP was determined using a written Delphi procedure. Intrarater reliability, interrater reliability, and construct validity were determined in an observational study (n=24). METHOD: Intrarater reliability and interrater reliability were calculated using Cohen kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Construct validity was determined by correlating the score on the EFIP with those on the timed "up & go" test (TUG), the performance-oriented mobility assessment (POMA), and the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G). RESULTS: Fifty items were included in the EFIP. Interrater reliability (Cohen kappa=0.72, ICC=.96) and intrarater reliability (Cohen kappa=0.77 and 0.80, ICC=.93 and .98) were good. As expected, a fair to moderate correlation with the TUG, POMA, and CIRS-G was found (.61, -.70, and .66, respectively). LIMITATIONS: Reliability and validity of the EFIP have been tested in a small sample. These and other clinimetric properties, such as responsiveness, will be assessed or reassessed in a larger study population. CONCLUSION: The EFIP is a reliable and valid instrument to evaluate the effect of physical activity on frailty in research and in clinical practice.
Authors: Nienke M de Vries; J Bart Staal; Philip J van der Wees; Eddy M M Adang; Reinier Akkermans; Marcel G M Olde Rikkert; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2015-12-04 Impact factor: 12.910
Authors: Jennifer L Sutton; Rebecca L Gould; Stephanie Daley; Mark C Coulson; Emma V Ward; Aine M Butler; Stephen P Nunn; Robert J Howard Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Gloria A Aguayo; Anne-Françoise Donneau; Michel T Vaillant; Anna Schritz; Oscar H Franco; Saverio Stranges; Laurent Malisoux; Michèle Guillaume; Daniel R Witte Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Michael G Wilson; François Béland; Dominic Julien; Lise Gauvin; G Emmanuel Guindon; Denis Roy; Kaitryn Campbell; Donna G Comeau; Heather Davidson; Parminder Raina; Deborah Sattler; Brenda Vrkljan Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2015-09-25
Authors: Nienke M de Vries; J Bart Staal; Steven Teerenstra; Eddy M M Adang; Marcel G M Olde Rikkert; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden Journal: Trials Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Asangaedem Akpan; Charlotte Roberts; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Barbara Batty; Claudia Bausewein; Diane Bell; David Bramley; Julie Bynum; Ian D Cameron; Liang-Kung Chen; Anne Ekdahl; Arnold Fertig; Tom Gentry; Marleen Harkes; Donna Haslehurst; Jonathon Hope; Diana Rodriguez Hurtado; Helen Lyndon; Joanne Lynn; Mike Martin; Ruthe Isden; Francesco Mattace Raso; Sheila Shaibu; Jenny Shand; Cathie Sherrington; Samir Sinha; Gill Turner; Nienke De Vries; George Jia-Chyi Yi; John Young; Jay Banerjee Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Gloria A Aguayo; Michel T Vaillant; Anne-Françoise Donneau; Anna Schritz; Saverio Stranges; Laurent Malisoux; Anna Chioti; Michèle Guillaume; Majon Muller; Daniel R Witte Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 11.069