Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

BibTeX

@article{1906a56c4cff496fbdd13f4d271f6085,
title = "The operationalization of fatigue in frailty scales: a systematic review",
abstract = "Purpose: To identify the different fatigue items in existing frailty scales. Methods: PubMed, Web of Knowledge and PsycINFO were systematically screened for frailty scales. 133 articles were included, describing 158 frailty scales. Fatigue items were extracted and categorized in 4 fatigue constructs: “mood state related tiredness”, “general feeling of tiredness”, “activity based feeling of tiredness” and “resistance to physical tiredness”. Results: 120 fatigue items were identified, of which 100 belonged to the construct “general feeling of tiredness” and only 9 to the construct “resistance to physical tiredness”. 49,4{\%} of the frailty scales included at least 1 fatigue item, representing 15 ± 9,3{\%} of all items in these scales. Fatigue items have a significantly higher weight in single domain (dominantly physical frailty scales) versus multi domain frailty scales (21 ± 3.2 versus 10.6 ± 9.8{\%}, p=<0,05). Conclusion: Fatigue is prominently represented in frailty scales, covering a great diversity in fatigue constructs and underlying pathophysiological mechanisms by which fatigue relates to frailty. Although fatigue items were more prevalent and had a higher weight in physical frailty scales, the operationalization of fatigue leaned more towards psychological constructs. This review can be used as a reference for choosing a suitable frailty scale depending on the type of fatigue of interest.",
keywords = "Frailty assessment, Fatigue, Tiredness, Aged, Frail elderly",
author = "V. Knoop and A. Costenoble and Azzopardi, {R. Vella} and S. Vermeiren and A. Debain and B. Jansen and Aldo Scafoglieri and I. Bautmans and Dominque Verte and Ingo Beyer and Mirko Petrovic and {De Donder}, Liesbeth and Tinie Kardol and Gina Rossi and Peter Clarys and Aldo Scafoglieri and Erik Cattrysse and {de Hert}, Paul and B. Jansen",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.arr.2019.100911",
language = "English",
volume = "53",
journal = "Ageing Research Reviews",
issn = "1568-1637",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The operationalization of fatigue in frailty scales: a systematic review

AU - Knoop, V.

AU - Costenoble, A.

AU - Azzopardi, R. Vella

AU - Vermeiren, S.

AU - Debain, A.

AU - Jansen, B.

AU - Scafoglieri, Aldo

AU - Bautmans, I.

AU - Verte, Dominque

AU - Beyer, Ingo

AU - Petrovic, Mirko

AU - De Donder, Liesbeth

AU - Kardol, Tinie

AU - Rossi, Gina

AU - Clarys, Peter

AU - Scafoglieri, Aldo

AU - Cattrysse, Erik

AU - de Hert, Paul

AU - Jansen, B.

PY - 2019/8

Y1 - 2019/8

N2 - Purpose: To identify the different fatigue items in existing frailty scales. Methods: PubMed, Web of Knowledge and PsycINFO were systematically screened for frailty scales. 133 articles were included, describing 158 frailty scales. Fatigue items were extracted and categorized in 4 fatigue constructs: “mood state related tiredness”, “general feeling of tiredness”, “activity based feeling of tiredness” and “resistance to physical tiredness”. Results: 120 fatigue items were identified, of which 100 belonged to the construct “general feeling of tiredness” and only 9 to the construct “resistance to physical tiredness”. 49,4% of the frailty scales included at least 1 fatigue item, representing 15 ± 9,3% of all items in these scales. Fatigue items have a significantly higher weight in single domain (dominantly physical frailty scales) versus multi domain frailty scales (21 ± 3.2 versus 10.6 ± 9.8%, p=<0,05). Conclusion: Fatigue is prominently represented in frailty scales, covering a great diversity in fatigue constructs and underlying pathophysiological mechanisms by which fatigue relates to frailty. Although fatigue items were more prevalent and had a higher weight in physical frailty scales, the operationalization of fatigue leaned more towards psychological constructs. This review can be used as a reference for choosing a suitable frailty scale depending on the type of fatigue of interest.

AB - Purpose: To identify the different fatigue items in existing frailty scales. Methods: PubMed, Web of Knowledge and PsycINFO were systematically screened for frailty scales. 133 articles were included, describing 158 frailty scales. Fatigue items were extracted and categorized in 4 fatigue constructs: “mood state related tiredness”, “general feeling of tiredness”, “activity based feeling of tiredness” and “resistance to physical tiredness”. Results: 120 fatigue items were identified, of which 100 belonged to the construct “general feeling of tiredness” and only 9 to the construct “resistance to physical tiredness”. 49,4% of the frailty scales included at least 1 fatigue item, representing 15 ± 9,3% of all items in these scales. Fatigue items have a significantly higher weight in single domain (dominantly physical frailty scales) versus multi domain frailty scales (21 ± 3.2 versus 10.6 ± 9.8%, p=<0,05). Conclusion: Fatigue is prominently represented in frailty scales, covering a great diversity in fatigue constructs and underlying pathophysiological mechanisms by which fatigue relates to frailty. Although fatigue items were more prevalent and had a higher weight in physical frailty scales, the operationalization of fatigue leaned more towards psychological constructs. This review can be used as a reference for choosing a suitable frailty scale depending on the type of fatigue of interest.

KW - Frailty assessment

KW - Fatigue

KW - Tiredness

KW - Aged

KW - Frail elderly

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85066956116&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.arr.2019.100911

DO - 10.1016/j.arr.2019.100911

M3 - Article

VL - 53

JO - Ageing Research Reviews

JF - Ageing Research Reviews

SN - 1568-1637

M1 - 100911

ER -

ID: 46975511