Daan Duppen

Limitations in Activities of Daily Living in Community-Dwelling People Aged 75 and Over: A Systematic Literature Review of Risk and Protective Factors

Background Most older people wish to age in place, for which functional status or being able to perform activities of daily living (ADLs) is an important precondition. However, along with the substantial growth of the (oldest) old, the number of people who develop limitations in ADLs or have functional decline dramatically increases in this part of the population. Therefore, it is important to gain insight into factors that can contribute to developing intervention strategies at older ages. As a first step, this systematic review was conducted to identify risk and protective factors as predictors for developing limitations in ADLs in community-dwelling people aged 75 and over. Methods Four electronic databases (CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE, PsycINFO and PubMed) were searched systematically for potentially relevant studies published between January 1998 and March 2016. Results After a careful selection process, 6,910 studies were identified and 25 were included. By far most factors were examined in one study only, and most were considered risk factors. Several factors do not seem to be able to predict the development of limitations in ADLs in people aged 75 years and over, and for some factors ambiguous associations were found. The following risk factors were found in at least two studies: higher age, female gender, diabetes, hypertension, and stroke. A high level of physical activity and being married were protective in multiple studies. Notwithstanding the fact that research in people aged 65 years and over is more extensive, risk and protective factors seem to differ between the ‘younger’ and ‘older’ olds. Conclusion Only a few risk and protective factors in community-dwelling people aged 75 years and over have been analysed in multiple studies. However, the identified factors could serve both detection and prevention purposes, and implications for future research are given as well.

Identifying frailty risk profiles of home-dwelling older people: focus on sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics

Abstract Objectives: This paper investigates risk profiles of frailty among older people, as these are essential for detecting those individuals at risk for adverse outcomes and to undertake specific preventive actions. Frailty is not only a physical problem, but also refers to emotional, social, and environmental hazards. Methods: Using data generated from the Belgian Ageing Studies, a cross-sectional study (n = 28,049), we tested a multivariate regression model that included sociodemographic and socioeconomic indicators as well as four dimensions of frailty, for men and women separately. Results: The findings indicated that for both men and women, increased age, having no partner, having moved house in the previous 10 years, having a lower educational level and having a lower household income are risk characteristics for frailty. Moreover, when looking at the different frailty domains, different risk profiles arose, and gender-specific risk characteristics were detected. Discussion: This paper elaborates on practical implications, and formulates a number of future research recommendations to tackle frailty in an aging society. The conclusion demonstrates the necessity for a thorough knowledge of risk profiles of frailty, as this will save both time and money and permit preventive actions to be more individually tailored.

The Social Environment’s Relationship With Frailty

Increasingly, policymakers assume that informal networks will provide care for frail older people. While the literature has mainly discussed the role of the family, broader social networks are also considered to be important. However, these social networks can diminish in later life. This systematic review investigates whether the social environment increases the risk of frailty or helps to prevent it. Findings from 15 original studies were classified using five different factors, which denoted five dimensions of the social environment: (a) social networks, (b) social support, (c) social participation, (d) subjective neighborhood experience, and (e) socioeconomic neighborhood characteristics. The discussion highlights that the social environment and frailty are indeed related, and how the neighborhood dimensions and social participation had more consistent results than social support and social networks. Conclusively, recommendations are formulated to contemplate all dimensions of the social environment for further research examining frailty and community care.

Detecting frail, older adults and identifying their strengths: results of a mixed-methods study

BackgroundThe debate on frailty in later life focuses primarily on deficits and their associations with adverse (health) outcomes. In addition to deficits, it may also be important to consider the abilities and resources of older adults. This study was designed to gain insights into the lived experiences of frailty among older adults to determine which strengths can balance the deficits that affect frailty.MethodsData from 121 potentially frail community-dwelling older adults in Flemish-speaking Region of Belgium and Brussels were collected using a mixed-methods approach. Quantitative data were collected using the Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Instrument (CFAI), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and numeric rating scales (NRS) for quality of life (QoL), care and support, meaning in life, and mastery. Bivariate analyses, paired samples t-tests and means were performed. Qualitative data on experiences of frailty, frailty balance, QoL, care and support, meaning in life, and mastery were collected using semi-structured interviews. Interviews were subjected to thematic content analysis.ResultsThe “no to mild frailty” group had higher QoL, care and support, meaning in life, and mastery scores than the “severe frailty” group. Nevertheless, qualitative results indicate that, despite being classified as frail, many older adults experienced high levels of QoL, care and support, meaning in life, and mastery. Respondents mentioned multiple balancing factors for frailty, comprising individual-level circumstances (e.g., personality traits, coping strategies, resilience), environmental influences (e.g., caregivers, neighborhood, social participation), and macro-level features (e.g., health literacy, adequate financial compensation). Respondents also highlighted that life changes affected their frailty balance, including changes in health, finances, personal relationships, and living situation.ConclusionThe findings indicate that frailty among older individuals can be considered as a dynamic state and, regardless of frailty, balancing factors are important in maintaining a good QoL. The study investigated not only the deficits, but also the abilities, and resources of frail, older adults. Public policymakers and healthcare organizations are encouraged to include these abilities, supplementary or even complementary to the usual focus on deficits.

Interventions for frail community-dwelling older adults have no significant effect on adverse outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundAccording to some studies, interventions can prevent or delay frailty, but their effect in preventing adverse outcomes in frail community-dwelling older people is unclear. The aim is to investigate the effect of an intervention on adverse outcomes in frail older adults.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Social Sciences Citation Index. Randomized controlled studies that aimed to treat frail community-dwelling older adults, were included. The outcomes were mortality, hospitalization, formal health costs, accidental falls, and institutionalization. Several sub-analyses were performed (duration of intervention, average age, dimension, recruitment).ResultsTwenty-five articles (16 original studies) were included. Six types of interventions were found. The pooled odds ratios (OR) for mortality when allocated in the experimental group were 0.99 [95% CI: 0.79, 1.25] for case management and 0.78 [95% CI: 0.41, 1.45] for provision information intervention. For institutionalization, the pooled OR with case management was 0.92 [95% CI: 0.63, 1.32], and the pooled OR for information provision intervention was 1.53 [95% CI: 0.64, 3.65]. The pooled OR for hospitalization when allocated in the experimental group was 1.13 [95% CI: 0.95, 1.35] for case management. Further sub-analyses did not yield any significant findings.ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis does not provide sufficient scientific evidence that interventions by frail older adults can be protective against the included adverse outcomes. A sub-analysis for some variables yielded no significant effects, although some findings suggested a decrease in adverse outcomes.Trial registrationProspero registration CRD42016035429.