Frailty Status and Functional Performance among Community-Dwelling Elderly - A Comparative Study Using two Frailty Criteria

• Main Authors: Jou-Min Tung, 同柔敏
• Other Authors: Lee-Hwa Chen
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2012
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/74888409763702222419

碩士 === 國立體育大學 === 運動保健學系碩士班 === 100 === BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with reduced age-related functional reserve and dysregulation of multiple systems, leading to vulnerability status or adverse health condition. It is therefore important to know how frailty affects heath of old people in the globally aging world. Frailty phenotype of Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) by Fried and Clinical Frailty Scale of Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CFS) by Rockwood were used to investigate the prevalence of frailty in Taiwan using a large sample size. Results from the aforesaid instruments both indicated mobility was an important aspect for frailty evaluation. However, the relationship between other functional performances and frailty has yet to be clarified. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the percentages in levels of frailty, and its different effect on functional performances among levels of frailty using CHS and CFS in the community-dwelling elderly. METHODS: Subjects were over the age of 65 resided near Linkou, New Taipei City and Gueishan, Taoyuan areas. They were implemented CFS, CHS, and functional performance tests, including BMI, one-leg standing with eyes-open and eyes-closed, functional forward reach (FFR), back scratch, chair sit-and-reach, grip strength, 30-s chair stand (CS), 2-minute step test (ST), 6-minute walk, 8-ft up-and-go (TUG), and 5-meter walk with usual (UW) and fast pace (FW). One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis. Significant level was set at p<.05. RESULTS：122 subjects (58 men; 64 women, meanage = 75.92) were recruited in the study. Percentages of non-frailty (NF), pre-frailty (PF) and frailty levels were 65.6%, 30.3%, 4.1% in CHS and 48.3%, 49.1%, 2.5% in CFS respectively. Significant differences were both found in CHS and CFS across levels of frailty in FFR (p=.000 vs. p=.038), CS (p=.043 vs. p=.012), ST (p=.003 vs. p=.000), TUG (p=.001 vs. p=.000), and UW (p=.001 vs. p=.006) and FW (p=.034 vs. p=.002) with abovementioned performances in NF superior to those in PF. CONCLUSION: The common results from both CHS and CFS showed statistically significant differences in balance, low extremity strength, cardiovascular fitness, and mobility between NF and PF groups. It is crucial to incorporate components of these functional performances as a basis in physical frailty prevention and intervention for the older population dwelled in the community.