Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/125207
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Feasibility and acceptability of commonly used screening instruments to identify frailty among community-dwelling older people: a mixed methods study
Author: Ambagtsheer, R.C.
Archibald, M.M.
Lawless, M.
Kitson, A.
Beilby, J.
Citation: BMC Geriatrics, 2020; 20(1):152-152
Publisher: BMC
Issue Date: 2020
ISSN: 1471-2318
1471-2318
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Rachel C. Ambagtsheer, Mandy M. Archibald, Michael Lawless, Alison Kitson and Justin Beilby
Abstract: 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.
Keywords: (MESH): frailty
Aged, 80 and over
Geriatric assessment
Mass screening
Primary health care
Rights: Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-020-01551-6
Grant ID: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1102208
Published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01551-6
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 4
Nursing publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
hdl_125207.pdfPublished version776.75 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.