Service of SURF
© 2025 SURF
No summary available
Ageing potentially poses a threat to independent functioning of older adults. Although clinicians commonly focus on physical factors limiting Functional Independence (FI), it is likely that personal and environmental interactions also seem important to maintain FI. Herewith, FI exceeds several professional borders and calls for a uniform, multidisciplinary interdisciplinary supported definition of FI. This study aims to provide such a definition of FI in community dwelling older people. A scoping review was performed. Pubmed/Medline, Psychinfo and CINAHL were searched for studies describing aspects of FI. A literature-based definition of FI was discussed by experts (n = 7), resulting in a formulated final definition of FI and insight into contributing factors to FI. A multidisciplinairy focusgroup a stakeholder consultation (n = 15) ensured clinical relevance for daily practice. Data from the focusgroup stakeholder consultation were analyzed by using Atlas.ti (version 8). Based on the literature search, 25 studies were included. FI was finally defined as “Functioning physically safely and independent from another person, within one’s own context”. The contributing factors of FI comprised physical capacity combined with coping, empowerment and health literacy. Moreover, the level of FI is influenced by someone’s own context. This study confirms the relevance of the physical aspect of FI, but additionally stresses the importance of psychological factors. In addition, this study shows that one’s context may affect the level of FI as well. This underlines the importance of a holistic view and calls for multidisciplinary interdisciplinary collaboration in community-dwelling older people.
LINK
Background: Clinicians are currently challenged to support older adults to maintain a certain level of Functional Independence (FI). FI is defined as "functioning physically safely and independent from another person, within one's own context". A Core Outcome Set was developed to measure FI. The purpose of this study was to assess discriminative validity of the Core Outcome Set FI (COSFI) in a population of Dutch older adults (≥ 65 years) with different levels of FI. Secondary objective was to assess to what extent the underlying domains 'coping', 'empowerment' and 'health literacy' contribute to the COSFI in addition to the domain 'physical capacity'. Methods: A population of 200 community-dwelling older adults and older adults living in residential care facilities were evaluated by the COSFI. The COSFI contains measurements on the four domains of FI: physical capacity, coping, empowerment and health literacy. In line with the COSMIN Study Design checklist for Patient-reported outcome measurement instruments, predefined hypotheses regarding prediction accuracy and differences between three subgroups of FI were tested. Testing included ordinal logistic regression analysis, with main outcome prediction accuracy of the COSFI on a proxy indicator for FI. Results: Overall, the prediction accuracy of the COSFI was 68%. For older adults living at home and depending on help in (i)ADL, prediction accuracy was 58%. 60% of the preset hypotheses were confirmed. Only physical capacity measured with Short Physical Performance Battery was significantly associated with group membership. Adding health literacy with coping or empowerment to a model with physical capacity improved the model significantly (p < 0.01). Conclusions: The current composition of the COSFI, did not yet meet the COSMIN criteria for discriminative validity. However, with some adjustments, the COSFI potentially becomes a valuable instrument for clinical practice. Context-related factors, like the presence of a spouse, also may be a determining factor in this population. It is recommended to include context-related factors in further research on determining FI in subgroups of older people.