ABSTRACT Objective: To examine the associations between individual chronic diseases and multidimensional frailty comprising physical, psychological, and social frailty. Methods: Dutch individuals (N = 47,768) age ≥ 65 years completed a general health questionnaire sent by the Public Health Services (response rate of 58.5 %), including data concerning self-reported chronic diseases, multidimensional frailty, and sociodemographic characteristics. Multidimensional frailty was assessed with the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI). Total frailty and each frailty domain were regressed onto background characteristics and the six most prevalent chronic diseases: diabetes mellitus, cancer, hypertension, arthrosis, urinary incontinence, and severe back disorder. Multimorbidity was defined as the presence of combinations of these six diseases. Results: The six chronic diseases had medium and strong associations with total ((f2 = 0.122) and physical frailty (f2 = 0.170), respectively, and weak associations with psychological (f2 = 0.023) and social frailty (f2 = 0.008). The effects of the six diseases on the frailty variables differed strongly across diseases, with urinary incontinence and severe back disorder impairing frailty most. No synergetic effects were found; the effects of a disease on frailty did not get noteworthy stronger in the presence of another disease. Conclusions: Chronic diseases, in particular urinary incontinence and severe back disorder, were associated with frailty. We thus recommend assigning different weights to individual chronic diseases in a measure of multimorbidity that aims to examine effects of multimorbidity on multidimensional frailty. Because there were no synergetic effects of chronic diseases, the measure does not need to include interactions between diseases.
Background: Patient participation in goal setting is important to deliver client-centered care. In daily practice, however, patient involvement in goal setting is not optimal. Patient-specific instruments, such as the Patient Specific Complaints (PSC) instrument, can support the goal-setting process because patients can identify and rate their own problems. The aim of this study is to explore patients’ experiences with the feasibility of the PSC, in the physiotherapy goal setting. Method: We performed a qualitative study. Data were collected by observations of physiotherapy sessions (n=23) and through interviews with patients (n=23) with chronic conditions in physiotherapy practices. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis. Results: The PSC was used at different moments and in different ways. Two feasibility themes were analyzed. First was the perceived ambiguity with the process of administration: patients perceived a broad range of experiences, such as emotional and supportive, as well as feeling a type of uncomfortableness. The second was the perceived usefulness: patients found the PSC useful for themselves – to increase awareness and motivation and to inform the physiotherapist – as well as being useful for the physiotherapist – to determine appropriate treatment for their personal needs. Some patients did not perceive any usefulness and were not aware of any relation with their treatment. Patients with a more positive attitude toward questionnaires, patients with an active role, and health-literate patients appreciated the PSC and felt facilitated by it. Patients who lacked these attributes did not fully understand the PSC’s process or purpose and let the physiotherapist take the lead. Conclusion: The PSC is a feasible tool to support patient participation in the physiotherapy goal setting. However, in the daily use of the PSC, patients are not always fully involved and informed. Patients reported varied experiences related to their personal attributes and modes of administration. This means that the PSC cannot be used in the same way in every patient. It is perfectly suited to use in a dialogue manner, which makes it very suitable to improve goal setting within client-centered care.
Background: The population ageing in most Western countries leads to a larger number of frail older people. These frail people are at an increased risk of negative health outcomes, such as functional decline, falls, institutionalisation and mortality. Many approaches are available for identifying frailty among older people. Researchers most often use Fried and colleagues’ description of the frailty phenotype. The authors describe five physical criteria. Other researchers prefer a combination of measurements in the social, psychological and/or physical domains. The aim of this study is to describe the levels of social, psychological and physical functioning according to Fried’s frailty stages using a large cohort of Dutch community-dwelling older people. Methods: There were 8,684 community-dwelling older people (65+) who participated in this cross-sectional study. Based on the five Fried frailty criteria (weight loss, exhaustion, low physical activity, slowness, weakness), the participants were divided into three stages: non-frail (score 0), pre-frail (score 1–2) and frail (score 3–5). These stages were related to scores in the social (social network type, informal care use, loneliness), psychological (psychological distress, mastery, self-management) and physical (chronic diseases, GARS IADL-disability, OECD disability) domains. Results: 63.2 % of the participants was non-frail, 28.1 % pre-frail and 8.7 % frail. When comparing the three stages of frailty, frail people appeared to be older, were more likely to be female, were more often unmarried or living alone, and had a lower level of education compared to their pre-frail and non-frail counterparts. The difference between the scores in the social, psychological and physical domains were statistically significant between the three frailty stages. The most preferable scores came from the non-frail group, and least preferable scores were from the frail group. For example use of informal care: non-frail 3.9 %, pre-frail 23.8 %, frail 60.6 %, and GARS IADL-disability mean scores: non-frail 9.2, pre-frail 13.0, frail 19.7. Conclusion: When older people were categorised according to the three frailty stages, as described by Fried and colleagues, there were statistically significant differences in the level of social, psychological and physical functioning between the non-frail, pre-frail and frail persons. Non-frail participants had consistently more preferable scores compared to the frail participants. This indicated that the Fried frailty criteria could help healthcare professionals identify and treat frail older people in an efficient way, and provide indications for problems in other domains.
