Comparing Cost and Acceptability of Two Instruments to Measure Instrumental Activities of Daily Living in Older People in Chile.

IF 3.1 3区医学 Q3 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY

Gerontology Pub Date : 2024-10-16 DOI:10.1159/000541754

Pablo Villalobos Dintrans, Antonia Echeverría, Constanza Inzunza

{"title":"Comparing Cost and Acceptability of Two Instruments to Measure Instrumental Activities of Daily Living in Older People in Chile.","authors":"Pablo Villalobos Dintrans, Antonia Echeverría, Constanza Inzunza","doi":"10.1159/000541754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Population aging and increasing long-term care needs call for designing and implementing better tools for assessing functional ability. In Chile, the Lawton and Brody (L&B) scale is used for identifying limitations with instrumental activities. This study compared the costs and acceptability of the L&B with a new instrument to measure instrumental activities of daily living (IADL): the Instrument for the Assessment of Functionality Stages (Instrumento de Evaluación de Estadios de Funcionalidad; IDEEF).Methods: Phone surveys were carried out to apply the L&B and the IDEEF to a sample of 200 older people (60+) participating in public programs for older people in the Metropolitan Region, Chile. Besides the items assessed by each scale, the survey captured completion times and included a short questionnaire on acceptability, data that allowed comparisons between instruments.Results: On average, the L&B takes around 4 min to be applied; the completion times for the IDEEF are 4 times longer. However, the IDEEF performs better in terms of acceptability and has neither gender bias nor dependency bias.Conclusion: Both instruments have pros and cons, but the IDEEF appears as a feasible alternative to the L&B to improve the assessment of IADL in the country.","PeriodicalId":12662,"journal":{"name":"Gerontology","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gerontology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000541754","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Population aging and increasing long-term care needs call for designing and implementing better tools for assessing functional ability. In Chile, the Lawton and Brody (L&B) scale is used for identifying limitations with instrumental activities. This study compared the costs and acceptability of the L&B with a new instrument to measure instrumental activities of daily living (IADL): the Instrument for the Assessment of Functionality Stages (Instrumento de Evaluación de Estadios de Funcionalidad; IDEEF).

Methods: Phone surveys were carried out to apply the L&B and the IDEEF to a sample of 200 older people (60+) participating in public programs for older people in the Metropolitan Region, Chile. Besides the items assessed by each scale, the survey captured completion times and included a short questionnaire on acceptability, data that allowed comparisons between instruments.

Results: On average, the L&B takes around 4 min to be applied; the completion times for the IDEEF are 4 times longer. However, the IDEEF performs better in terms of acceptability and has neither gender bias nor dependency bias.

Conclusion: Both instruments have pros and cons, but the IDEEF appears as a feasible alternative to the L&B to improve the assessment of IADL in the country.

查看原文本刊更多论文

比较两种测量智利老年人日常生活工具性活动的工具的成本和可接受性。

简介：人口老龄化和日益增长的长期护理需求要求设计和实施更好的功能能力评估工具：人口老龄化和长期护理需求的增加要求设计和使用更好的工具来评估功能能力。在智利，劳顿-布罗迪（Lawton & Brody，L&B）量表用于确定工具性活动的限制。本研究比较了劳顿布罗迪量表与一种新的工具--功能阶段评估工具（IDEEF）--的成本和可接受性：方法：对智利首都大区参加老年人公共项目的 200 名老年人（60 岁以上）进行电话调查，采用 L&B 和 IDEEF。除了每个量表的评估项目外，调查还记录了完成时间，并包括一份关于可接受性的简短问卷，这些数据有助于对不同工具进行比较：结果：L&B 的平均使用时间约为 4 分钟，而 IDEEF 的完成时间要长四倍。然而，IDEEF 在可接受性方面表现更好，既没有性别偏差，也没有依赖性偏差：两种工具各有利弊，但 IDEEF 似乎是 L&B 的可行替代方案，可用于改善该国的 IADL 评估。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Gerontology 医学-老年医学

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： In view of the ever-increasing fraction of elderly people, understanding the mechanisms of aging and age-related diseases has become a matter of urgent necessity. ''Gerontology'', the oldest journal in the field, responds to this need by drawing topical contributions from multiple disciplines to support the fundamental goals of extending active life and enhancing its quality. The range of papers is classified into four sections. In the Clinical Section, the aetiology, pathogenesis, prevention and treatment of agerelated diseases are discussed from a gerontological rather than a geriatric viewpoint. The Experimental Section contains up-to-date contributions from basic gerontological research. Papers dealing with behavioural development and related topics are placed in the Behavioural Science Section. Basic aspects of regeneration in different experimental biological systems as well as in the context of medical applications are dealt with in a special section that also contains information on technological advances for the elderly. Providing a primary source of high-quality papers covering all aspects of aging in humans and animals, ''Gerontology'' serves as an ideal information tool for all readers interested in the topic of aging from a broad perspective.