A Comprehensive Overview of Activities of Daily Living in Existing Frailty Instruments: A Systematic Literature Search

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background and Objectives

The relationship between frailty and disability in activities of daily living (ADLs) can be seen in different ways, with disability being—to varying degrees—a characteristic, negative outcome, or predictor of frailty. This conflation of definitions is partly a result of the different frailty tools used in research. Aiming to provide a comprehensive overview, this systematic literature search analyzed (i) if, (ii) to what extent, and (iii) how ADLs are evaluated by frailty instruments.

Research Design and Methods

A search was performed in PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and PsycINFO to identify all frailty instruments, followed by categorization of the ADL items into basic (b-), instrumental (i-), and advanced (a-) ADLs.

Results

In total, 192 articles described 217 frailty instruments, from which 52.1% contained ADL items: 45.2% b-ADLs, 35.0% i-ADLs, and 10.1% a-ADLs. The most commonly included ADL items were bathing (b-ADLs); using transportation (i-ADLs); and semiprofessional work engagement in organized social life or leisure activities (a-ADLs). These instruments all had a multidomain origin (χ 2 = 122.4, p < .001).

Discussion and Implications

Because 52.1% of all instruments included ADL items, the concepts of frailty and disability appear to be highly entangled. This might lead to circular reasoning, serious concerns regarding contamination, and invalid research results.

Related collections

Most cited references 67

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Alessandro Liberati, Douglas G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff … (2010)

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.