养老院80岁及以上老年人内在能力三种测量方法的敏感性和特异性。

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Clinical Interventions in Aging Pub Date : 2024-12-31 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CIA.S486663
Linlin Ma, Enjie Zheng, Yi Fang, Huixian Chen, Chuncong Zhou, Shuya Cai, Fen Luo, Wen Jiang, Jialu Wang, Xiangxiang Ning, Haixia Tu, Zhiqin Yin
{"title":"养老院80岁及以上老年人内在能力三种测量方法的敏感性和特异性。","authors":"Linlin Ma, Enjie Zheng, Yi Fang, Huixian Chen, Chuncong Zhou, Shuya Cai, Fen Luo, Wen Jiang, Jialu Wang, Xiangxiang Ning, Haixia Tu, Zhiqin Yin","doi":"10.2147/CIA.S486663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Intrinsic capacity (IC), a crucial indicator for the United Nations Decade of Healthy Ageing 2021-2030, is defined by WHO as the foundation of functional ability, representing the composite of all physical and mental capacities of an individual. IC spans five function domains: Locomotor, psychological, cognitive, vitality, and sensory (including vision and hearing). Accurate IC assessment is vital for effective interventions, yet comparative analyses of these tools are scarce. Consequently, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of three IC assessment tools in individuals aged 80 and above-Integrated care for older people (ICOPE) Step 1, ICOPE Step 2, and the Lopez-Ortiz's IC scoring system.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This cross-sectional analysis included a total of 475 participants aged ≥80 years between July 2023 and January 2024 in 11 nursing homes in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China. To assess that included sociodemographic and health-related information alongside the three IC tools. Diagnostic efficacy was gauged using sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), accuracy, Youden index, and the area under the curve (AUC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The detection of IC decline exceeded 85% across all methods. Using ICOPE Step 2 as a benchmark, ICOPE Step 1 showed robust performance across four domains of locomotion, psychological, cognitive, and vitality, whereas the Lopez-Ortiz's IC scoring system was generally ineffective.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All three IC assessment methods have limitations. To save resources, ICOPE Step 1 can be considered for direct assessment in non-sensory domains. Conversely, the ICOPE Step 2 and Lopez-Ortiz's IC scoring systems exhibited overly stringent and lenient thresholds, respectively. At this stage, IC assessment tools cannot balance subjectivity and objectivity; thus, it is recommended that the appropriate tool be selected according to actual application scenarios. Continuous improvement of IC assessment tools remains a requirement for future studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":48841,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Interventions in Aging","volume":"19 ","pages":"2179-2194"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11699827/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sensitivity and Specificity of Three Measures of Intrinsic Capacity in Older People Aged 80 and Over in Nursing Homes.\",\"authors\":\"Linlin Ma, Enjie Zheng, Yi Fang, Huixian Chen, Chuncong Zhou, Shuya Cai, Fen Luo, Wen Jiang, Jialu Wang, Xiangxiang Ning, Haixia Tu, Zhiqin Yin\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/CIA.S486663\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Intrinsic capacity (IC), a crucial indicator for the United Nations Decade of Healthy Ageing 2021-2030, is defined by WHO as the foundation of functional ability, representing the composite of all physical and mental capacities of an individual. IC spans five function domains: Locomotor, psychological, cognitive, vitality, and sensory (including vision and hearing). Accurate IC assessment is vital for effective interventions, yet comparative analyses of these tools are scarce. Consequently, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of three IC assessment tools in individuals aged 80 and above-Integrated care for older people (ICOPE) Step 1, ICOPE Step 2, and the Lopez-Ortiz's IC scoring system.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This cross-sectional analysis included a total of 475 participants aged ≥80 years between July 2023 and January 2024 in 11 nursing homes in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China. To assess that included sociodemographic and health-related information alongside the three IC tools. Diagnostic efficacy was gauged using sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), accuracy, Youden index, and the area under the curve (AUC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The detection of IC decline exceeded 85% across all methods. Using ICOPE Step 2 as a benchmark, ICOPE Step 1 showed robust performance across four domains of locomotion, psychological, cognitive, and vitality, whereas the Lopez-Ortiz's IC scoring system was generally ineffective.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All three IC assessment methods have limitations. To save resources, ICOPE Step 1 can be considered for direct assessment in non-sensory domains. Conversely, the ICOPE Step 2 and Lopez-Ortiz's IC scoring systems exhibited overly stringent and lenient thresholds, respectively. At this stage, IC assessment tools cannot balance subjectivity and objectivity; thus, it is recommended that the appropriate tool be selected according to actual application scenarios. Continuous improvement of IC assessment tools remains a requirement for future studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Interventions in Aging\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"2179-2194\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11699827/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Interventions in Aging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S486663\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Interventions in Aging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S486663","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:内在能力(IC)是联合国2021-2030年健康老龄化十年的一个关键指标,世卫组织将其定义为功能能力的基础,代表个人所有身心能力的综合。IC跨越五个功能领域:运动、心理、认知、活力和感觉(包括视觉和听觉)。准确的IC评估对于有效干预至关重要,但对这些工具的比较分析很少。因此,我们评估了三种IC评估工具对80岁及以上个体的诊断准确性。老年人综合护理(ICOPE)第1步、ICOPE第2步和Lopez-Ortiz IC评分系统。患者和方法:本横断面分析包括中国浙江省宁波市11家养老院的475名年龄≥80岁的参与者,时间为2023年7月至2024年1月。评估包括社会人口统计和健康相关信息以及三个IC工具。采用敏感性、特异性、阴性预测值(NPV)、阳性预测值(PPV)、准确性、约登指数(Youden index)和曲线下面积(AUC)来衡量诊断效果。结果:所有方法的IC下降检出率均超过85%。使用ICOPE第2步作为基准,ICOPE第1步在运动、心理、认知和活力四个领域显示出强大的表现,而Lopez-Ortiz的IC评分系统通常无效。结论:三种IC评价方法均有局限性。为节省资源,ICOPE步骤1可考虑在非感官领域进行直接评估。相反,ICOPE step2和Lopez-Ortiz的IC评分系统分别表现出过于严格和宽松的阈值。在这个阶段,IC评估工具无法平衡主观性和客观性;因此,建议根据实际应用场景选择合适的工具。不断改进IC评估工具仍然是未来研究的要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sensitivity and Specificity of Three Measures of Intrinsic Capacity in Older People Aged 80 and Over in Nursing Homes.

Purpose: Intrinsic capacity (IC), a crucial indicator for the United Nations Decade of Healthy Ageing 2021-2030, is defined by WHO as the foundation of functional ability, representing the composite of all physical and mental capacities of an individual. IC spans five function domains: Locomotor, psychological, cognitive, vitality, and sensory (including vision and hearing). Accurate IC assessment is vital for effective interventions, yet comparative analyses of these tools are scarce. Consequently, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of three IC assessment tools in individuals aged 80 and above-Integrated care for older people (ICOPE) Step 1, ICOPE Step 2, and the Lopez-Ortiz's IC scoring system.

Patients and methods: This cross-sectional analysis included a total of 475 participants aged ≥80 years between July 2023 and January 2024 in 11 nursing homes in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China. To assess that included sociodemographic and health-related information alongside the three IC tools. Diagnostic efficacy was gauged using sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), accuracy, Youden index, and the area under the curve (AUC).

Results: The detection of IC decline exceeded 85% across all methods. Using ICOPE Step 2 as a benchmark, ICOPE Step 1 showed robust performance across four domains of locomotion, psychological, cognitive, and vitality, whereas the Lopez-Ortiz's IC scoring system was generally ineffective.

Conclusion: All three IC assessment methods have limitations. To save resources, ICOPE Step 1 can be considered for direct assessment in non-sensory domains. Conversely, the ICOPE Step 2 and Lopez-Ortiz's IC scoring systems exhibited overly stringent and lenient thresholds, respectively. At this stage, IC assessment tools cannot balance subjectivity and objectivity; thus, it is recommended that the appropriate tool be selected according to actual application scenarios. Continuous improvement of IC assessment tools remains a requirement for future studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Interventions in Aging
Clinical Interventions in Aging GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
193
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Interventions in Aging, is an online, peer reviewed, open access journal focusing on concise rapid reporting of original research and reviews in aging. Special attention will be given to papers reporting on actual or potential clinical applications leading to improved prevention or treatment of disease or a greater understanding of pathological processes that result from maladaptive changes in the body associated with aging. This journal is directed at a wide array of scientists, engineers, pharmacists, pharmacologists and clinical specialists wishing to maintain an up to date knowledge of this exciting and emerging field.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信