frailty index

脆弱指数
  • 文章类型: Observational Study
    背景:在这项观察性研究中,我们比较了50岁及以上成年人在主动站立测试中的连续生理信号,由三个不同的标准表征为虚弱,使用爱尔兰老龄化纵向研究(TILDA)的数据。
    方法:这项研究利用了TILA的数据,一项针对爱尔兰50岁或以上社区居住成年人的具有里程碑意义的前瞻性队列研究.TILDA中的初始采样策略基于随机地理目录采样。确定了四个独立的组:仅通过使用的脆弱工具之一(物理脆弱表型(FP),32项脆弱指数(FI),或临床虚弱量表(CFS)分类树),第四组,参与者没有被这些工具中的任何一个定性为虚弱。在主动站立测试期间收集连续的非侵入性生理信号,包括收缩压(sBP)和舒张压(dBP),以及心率(HR),使用数字动脉光电容积描记术。此外,额叶脑氧合(Oxy),脱氧(脱氧),和组织饱和指数(TSI)也使用近红外光谱(NIRS)进行非侵入性测量。在虚弱组之间对信号进行可视化,并使用一维统计参数映射(SPM)进行统计学比较。
    结果:共纳入1124名参与者(平均年龄为63.5岁;50.2%为女性):23名仅由FP表征为虚弱,97由FI,38由CFS,和966没有这些标准。SPM分析显示,与非虚弱组相比,只有通过FI表征为虚弱的组具有显著不同的信号(p<0.001)。具体来说,他们在站立后10至15s之间的HR增益减弱,在站立后15至20s之间的sBP和dBP赤字更大。
    结论:FI被证明更擅长捕捉对站立的不同生理反应,可能是由于其定义中直接包含了心血管疾病。在通过不同的虚弱标准识别的虚弱人群中,观察到心血管信号的动态存在显着差异。建议在生理信号上使用虚弱识别工具时应谨慎,特别是主动站立测试中的神经心血管信号。
    BACKGROUND: In this observational study, we compared continuous physiological signals during an active standing test in adults aged 50 years and over, characterised as frail by three different criteria, using data from The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA).
    METHODS: This study utilised data from TILDA, an ongoing landmark prospective cohort study of community-dwelling adults aged 50 years or older in Ireland. The initial sampling strategy in TILDA was based on random geodirectory sampling. Four independent groups were identified: those characterised as frail only by one of the frailty tools used (the physical Frailty Phenotype (FP), the 32-item Frailty Index (FI), or the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) classification tree), and a fourth group where participants were not characterised as frail by any of these tools. Continuous non-invasive physiological signals were collected during an active standing test, including systolic (sBP) and diastolic (dBP) blood pressure, as well as heart rate (HR), using digital artery photoplethysmography. Additionally, the frontal lobe cerebral oxygenation (Oxy), deoxygenation (Deoxy), and tissue saturation index (TSI) were also non-invasively measured using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). The signals were visualised across frailty groups and statistically compared using one-dimensional statistical parametric mapping (SPM).
    RESULTS: A total of 1124 participants (mean age of 63.5 years; 50.2% women) were included: 23 were characterised as frail only by the FP, 97 by the FI, 38 by the CFS, and 966 by none of these criteria. The SPM analyses revealed that only the group characterised as frail by the FI had significantly different signals (p < 0.001) compared to the non-frail group. Specifically, they exhibited an attenuated gain in HR between 10 and 15 s post-stand and larger deficits in sBP and dBP between 15 and 20 s post-stand.
    CONCLUSIONS: The FI proved to be more adept at capturing distinct physiological responses to standing, likely due to its direct inclusion of cardiovascular morbidities in its definition. Significant differences were observed in the dynamics of cardiovascular signals among the frail populations identified by different frailty criteria, suggesting that caution should be taken when employing frailty identification tools on physiological signals, particularly the neurocardiovascular signals in an active standing test.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    鼓励社会处方以促进福祉,减少孤立和孤独。传统,可以通过社会处方建议为老年人提供通才日间中心,但对他们的客户或结果知之甚少。作为更广泛的角色研究的一部分,老年人通才英语日间中心的成果和调试,4个日间中心的出席者的特点,探讨了他们出席的原因和结果。
    这项混合方法研究在嵌入式多案例研究设计中使用了定性访谈和标准化工具。对英格兰东南部4个日间中心的老年日间中心参与者(n=23,占合格参与者的62%)进行半结构化访谈,有目的地招募以反映组织差异,进行了分析。
    参与者报告说,在健康或行动能力下降后,非选择性退出社会化,或损失。除了生活安排和婚姻状况,各中心之间的与会者简介不同。访问大多是由其他人提供便利的。日间中心的出勤提高了这群社会孤立的人的生活质量,这些人行动不便,独立性和幸福感有下降的风险。对参与者的社会参与和参与以及对有意义的职业的积极影响是显著的(p值<0.001,99%CI),平均ASCOT增益得分为0.18。确定了十个成果主题。
    日间中心出勤的结果是社会护理和卫生政策所针对的结果。中心是“启用”并抵消损失或隔离的社区,因此,通过健康来支持老龄化,并为他们的参与者的生活做出了独特的贡献。通过监测出席者的健康和福祉并提供实际支持,信息和促进对其他服务的访问,中心提供了附加值。出勤需要在其他社会参与和护理提供的背景下进行设置,这可能不会重叠或重复中心支持。专业人士不妨探讨社会处方对日间中心的好处,但应绘制当地中心的地图,与他们的组织者接触,并寻求与会者的信息,他们可能与本研究中的人不同。
    Social prescribing is encouraged to promote well-being, reduce isolation and loneliness. Traditional, generalist day centres for older people could be suggested by social prescribing, but little is known about their clientele or their outcomes. As part of a larger study of the role, outcomes and commissioning of generalist English day centres for older people, the characteristics of attenders at 4 day centres, their reasons for attendance and outcomes were explored.
    This mixed-methods study used qualitative interviews and standardised tools within an embedded multiple-case study design. Semi-structured interviews with older day centre attenders (n = 23, 62% of eligible attenders) of 4 day centres in south-east England, recruited purposively to reflect organisational differences, were analysed.
    Participants reported non-elective withdrawal from socialisation following health or mobility decline, or losses. Apart from living arrangements and marital status, attenders\' profiles differed between centres. Access had been mostly facilitated by others. Day centre attendance enhanced quality of life for this group of socially isolated people with mobility restrictions and at risk of declining independence and wellbeing. The positive impact on attenders\' social participation and involvement and on meaningful occupation was significant (p-value < 0.001, 99% CI), with an average ASCOT gain score of 0.18. Ten outcome themes were identified.
    Outcomes of day centre attendance are those targeted by social care and health policy. Centres were communities that \'enabled\' and offset loss or isolation, thus supporting ageing in place through wellbeing and contributed something unique to their attenders\' lives. By monitoring attenders\' health and wellbeing and providing practical support, information and facilitating access to other services, centres offered added value. Attendance needs to be set in the context of other social engagement and care provision which may not overlap or duplicate centre support. Professionals may wish to explore the benefits of social prescriptions to day centres but should map local centres\' provision, engage with their organisers, and seek information on attenders, who may differ from those in this study.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号