↓ Skip to main content

Using an accumulation of deficits approach to measure frailty in a population of home care users with intellectual and developmental disabilities: an analytical descriptive study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using an accumulation of deficits approach to measure frailty in a population of home care users with intellectual and developmental disabilities: an analytical descriptive study
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12877-015-0170-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine McKenzie, Hélène Ouellette-Kuntz, Lynn Martin

Abstract

The aging population of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) is growing. In the general aging population, frailty is commonly used to predict adverse health outcomes, including hospital use, death, and admission to long-term care. However, existing frailty measures are less appropriate for aging persons with IDD, given their pre-existing conditions and limitations. An accumulation of deficits approach, which is now widely used to describe frailty in the general population, may be more suitable for persons with IDD. Frailty measures specific to persons with IDD have not been widely studied. Using pre-determined criteria, a frailty index (FI) specific to persons with IDD was developed based on items in the Resident Assessment Instrument - Home Care (RAI-HC), and using the assessments of 7,863 individuals with IDD in Ontario (aged 18-99 years) admitted to home care between April 1(st), 2006 and March 31(st), 2014. FI scores were derived by dividing deficits present by deficits measured, and categorized into meaningful strata using stratum-specific likelihood ratios. A multinomial logistic regression model identified associations between frailty and individual characteristics. The resulting FI is comprised of 42 deficits across five domains (physiological, psychological, cognitive, social and service use). The mean FI score was 0.22 (SD = 0.13), equivalent to 9 deficits. Over half of the cohort was non-frail (FI score < 0.21), while the remaining were either pre-frail (21 %, FI score between 0.21 and 0.30) or frail (27 %, FI score > 0.30). Controlling for individual characteristics, women were more likely to be frail compared to men (OR = 1.39, 95 % CI: 1.23-1.56). Individuals who were frail were significantly more likely to have a caregiver who was unable to continuing caring (OR = 1.86, 95 % CI: 1.55-2.22) or feeling distressed (OR = 1.54, 95 % CI: 1.30-1.83). Living with a family members was significantly protective of frailty (OR = 0.35, 95 % CI: 0.29-0.41), compared to living alone. Using the FI to identify frailty in adults with IDD is feasible and can be incorporated into existing home care assessments. This could offer case managers assistance in identifying at-risk individuals. Future analyses should evaluate this measure's ability to predict future adverse outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 85 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 20%
Student > Master 16 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 16 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 18%
Psychology 13 15%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 18 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 November 2016.
All research outputs
#5,567,649
of 21,453,375 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,339
of 2,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,147
of 402,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#59
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,453,375 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,779 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 402,883 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.