Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: a Frailty Index (FI) calculated by the accumulation of deficits is often used to quantify the extent of frailty in individuals in specific settings. This study aimed to derive a FI that can be applied across three standardised international Residential Assessment Instrument assessments (interRAI), used at different stages of ageing and the corresponding increase in support needs.
Methods: deficit items common to the interRAI Contact Assessment (CA), Home Care (HC) or Long-Term Care Facilities assessment (LTCF) were identified and recoded to form a cumulative deficit FI. The index was validated using a large dataset of needs assessments of older people in New Zealand against mortality prediction using Kaplan Meier curves and logistic regression models. The index was further validated by comparing its performance with a previously validated index in the HC cohort.
Results: the index comprised 15 questions across seven domains. The assessment cohort and their mean frailty (SD) were: 89,506 CA with 0.26 (0.15), 151,270 HC with 0.36 (0.15) and 83,473 LTCF with 0.41 (0.17). The index predicted 1-year mortality for each of the CA, HC and LTCF, cohorts with area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of 0.741 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.718-0.762), 0.687 (95%CI: 0.684-0.690) and 0.674 (95%CI: 0.670-0.678), respectively.
Conclusions: the results for this multi-instrument FI are congruent with the differences in frailty expected for people in the target settings for these instruments and appropriately associated with mortality at each stage of the journey of progressive ageing.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afac178 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!