Interventions for cognitive frailty: developing a Delphi consensus with multidisciplinary and multisectoral experts.

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience Pub Date : 2025-06-04 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fnagi.2025.1541048
Carol A Holland, Nikolett Dravecz, Susan Broughton, Lynne A Barker, Fidelia Bature, Charlotte Clarke, Isaac M Danat, Sayani Das, Irundika H K Dias, Annabel Dawson, M Dixon, Amanda Ellison, David Façal, Roland Finch, Christopher J Gaffney, Alan Gow, Eirini Kelaiditi, Andrzej Klimczuk, Esperanza Navarro-Pardo, Pheobe Sharratt, Andrew Sixsmith, Claudia K Suemoto, Lalu Suprawesta, Tamlyn Watermeyer, Sally Fowler Davis
{"title":"Interventions for cognitive frailty: developing a Delphi consensus with multidisciplinary and multisectoral experts.","authors":"Carol A Holland, Nikolett Dravecz, Susan Broughton, Lynne A Barker, Fidelia Bature, Charlotte Clarke, Isaac M Danat, Sayani Das, Irundika H K Dias, Annabel Dawson, M Dixon, Amanda Ellison, David Façal, Roland Finch, Christopher J Gaffney, Alan Gow, Eirini Kelaiditi, Andrzej Klimczuk, Esperanza Navarro-Pardo, Pheobe Sharratt, Andrew Sixsmith, Claudia K Suemoto, Lalu Suprawesta, Tamlyn Watermeyer, Sally Fowler Davis","doi":"10.3389/fnagi.2025.1541048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The conjunction of physical frailty and cognitive impairment without dementia is described as Cognitive Frailty (CF). Indications that CF is potentially reversible have led to proposals that risk factors, symptoms or mechanisms of CF would be appropriate targets for interventions for prevention, delay or reversal. However, no study has brought experts together across sectors to determine targets, content or mode of interventions, and most resources on interventions are from the perspective of academic or clinical researchers only. This international Delphi consensus study brings together experts from academic and clinical research, lay people with lived experience of CF, informal carers, and professional care practitioners/clinicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three rounds of Delphi study were held to discern which factors and statements were agreed upon by the whole sample and which generated different views in those with differing expertise. A scoping review and Round 1 (29 participants) were used to gather initial statements. In Round 2, 58 people responded to statements and open text items, comprising 7 lab-based researchers, 27 researchers working with people, 14 people with lived experience or informal family carers, and 10 professional carers/clinicians. Percent agreement and qualitative responses were analyzed to provide a final set of statements which were checked by 38 respondents in Round 3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of Round 2 quantitative data provided 74 statements on which there was at least 70% agreement and qualitative data produced a further 24 statements. These were combined to provide 90 statements for Round 3. There was Consensus for 89 of the statements. A few differences between the groups were observed at both stages.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>The consensus for statements associated with CF interventions provides a useful first step in defining health promotion activities and interventions. Given the prevalence and potential disability caused by CF in older populations, the consensus statements represent expert opinion that is inter-sectoral and will inform public health policies to support implementation of evidence-based prevention and intervention plans. This study is an important step toward changing current approaches, by including all stakeholders from the outset. Outcomes can be used to feed into co-creation of interventions for cognitive frailty.</p>","PeriodicalId":12450,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience","volume":"17 ","pages":"1541048"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12174145/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2025.1541048","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The conjunction of physical frailty and cognitive impairment without dementia is described as Cognitive Frailty (CF). Indications that CF is potentially reversible have led to proposals that risk factors, symptoms or mechanisms of CF would be appropriate targets for interventions for prevention, delay or reversal. However, no study has brought experts together across sectors to determine targets, content or mode of interventions, and most resources on interventions are from the perspective of academic or clinical researchers only. This international Delphi consensus study brings together experts from academic and clinical research, lay people with lived experience of CF, informal carers, and professional care practitioners/clinicians.

Methods: Three rounds of Delphi study were held to discern which factors and statements were agreed upon by the whole sample and which generated different views in those with differing expertise. A scoping review and Round 1 (29 participants) were used to gather initial statements. In Round 2, 58 people responded to statements and open text items, comprising 7 lab-based researchers, 27 researchers working with people, 14 people with lived experience or informal family carers, and 10 professional carers/clinicians. Percent agreement and qualitative responses were analyzed to provide a final set of statements which were checked by 38 respondents in Round 3.

Results: Analysis of Round 2 quantitative data provided 74 statements on which there was at least 70% agreement and qualitative data produced a further 24 statements. These were combined to provide 90 statements for Round 3. There was Consensus for 89 of the statements. A few differences between the groups were observed at both stages.

Discussion and conclusion: The consensus for statements associated with CF interventions provides a useful first step in defining health promotion activities and interventions. Given the prevalence and potential disability caused by CF in older populations, the consensus statements represent expert opinion that is inter-sectoral and will inform public health policies to support implementation of evidence-based prevention and intervention plans. This study is an important step toward changing current approaches, by including all stakeholders from the outset. Outcomes can be used to feed into co-creation of interventions for cognitive frailty.

认知脆弱的干预:与多学科和多部门专家形成德尔菲共识。
身体虚弱和无痴呆的认知障碍的结合被描述为认知虚弱(CF)。有迹象表明,CF可能是可逆的,因此建议将CF的风险因素、症状或机制作为预防、延迟或逆转干预措施的适当目标。然而,没有一项研究将跨部门的专家聚集在一起,以确定干预措施的目标、内容或模式,而且大多数干预措施的资源仅来自学术或临床研究人员的角度。这项国际德尔菲共识研究汇集了来自学术和临床研究的专家、有CF生活经验的非专业人士、非正式护理人员和专业护理人员/临床医生。方法:进行三轮德尔菲研究,以确定哪些因素和陈述是由整个样本同意的,哪些因素和陈述在不同的专业知识中产生了不同的观点。范围审查和第一轮(29名参与者)用于收集初始陈述。在第二轮中,58人对陈述和开放文本项目做出了回应,其中包括7名实验室研究人员,27名与人打交道的研究人员,14名有生活经验或非正式家庭护理人员,以及10名专业护理人员/临床医生。百分比的同意和定性的回应进行分析,以提供最终的一套声明,由38名受访者在第三轮检查。结果:第2轮定量数据的分析提供了74个至少70%一致的陈述,定性数据产生了另外24个陈述。这些加起来为第三轮提供了90个陈述。其中89项意见一致。在两个阶段观察到两组之间的一些差异。讨论和结论:对CF干预相关声明的共识为确定健康促进活动和干预措施提供了有用的第一步。鉴于CF在老年人群中的患病率和潜在致残,共识声明代表了跨部门的专家意见,并将为公共卫生政策提供信息,以支持实施循证预防和干预计划。这项研究从一开始就包括所有利益相关者,是朝着改变当前方法迈出的重要一步。结果可用于共同创造认知脆弱的干预措施。
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
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-NEUROSCIENCES
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
1426
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience is a leading journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research that advances our understanding of the mechanisms of Central Nervous System aging and age-related neural diseases. Specialty Chief Editor Thomas Wisniewski at the New York University School of Medicine is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信