比较PRISMA-7和改进版本(PRISMA-6)用于衰弱筛查:解决社区居住老年人的性别偏见。

IF 2.1 Q3 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Dietmar Ausserhofer, Angelika Mahlknecht, Verena Barbieri, Adolf Engl, Giuliano Piccoliori, Christian J Wiedermann
{"title":"比较PRISMA-7和改进版本(PRISMA-6)用于衰弱筛查:解决社区居住老年人的性别偏见。","authors":"Dietmar Ausserhofer, Angelika Mahlknecht, Verena Barbieri, Adolf Engl, Giuliano Piccoliori, Christian J Wiedermann","doi":"10.3390/geriatrics10010009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives:</b> Frailty screening facilitates the identification of older adults at risk of adverse health outcomes. The Program of Research to Integrate Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy 7 (PRISMA-7) is a widely utilised frailty tool; however, concerns regarding its potential sex bias persist due to item 2, which assigns a frailty point for male sex. This study compared the PRISMA-7 with a modified version, the PRISMA-6 (excluding item 2), to assess their suitability for frailty screening in South Tyrol, Italy. Objectives included evaluating the impact of item 2 on frailty classification and exploring the feasibility of the PRISMA-6 as a more equitable alternative. <b>Methods:</b> A cross-sectional survey of 1695 community-dwelling older adults aged ≥75 years was conducted in South Tyrol. Frailty was assessed using both the PRISMA-7 and PRISMA-6. Sociodemographic, health, and lifestyle data were collected to examine associations with frailty classifications. Logistic regression was applied to identify predictors of frailty for each tool. Agreement between the PRISMA-7 and PRISMA-6 was assessed, and internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. <b>Results:</b> Frailty prevalence was 33.9% with the PRISMA-7 and 27.0% with the PRISMA-6. The PRISMA-7 classified men as frail more frequently than women (34.7% vs. 33.0%), while the PRISMA-6 reversed this trend (men, 21.4%; women, 33.0%). Excluding item 2 improved internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: PRISMA-7, 0.64; PRISMA-6, 0.75) and aligned frailty classifications with predictors such as age, health status, and physical activity. Logistic regression revealed significant sex differences with the PRISMA-7 but not with the PRISMA-6. <b>Conclusions:</b> The PRISMA-7 introduces sex bias by overestimating frailty in men, whereas the PRISMA-6 provides a more equitable and consistent alternative. The findings highlight the PRISMA-6's potential as a reliable tool for unbiased frailty screening. Future research should validate the PRISMA-6 against established frailty tools to support its integration into primary care settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":12653,"journal":{"name":"Geriatrics","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11755479/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the PRISMA-7 and a Modified Version (PRISMA-6) for Frailty Screening: Addressing Sex Bias in Community-Dwelling Older Adults.\",\"authors\":\"Dietmar Ausserhofer, Angelika Mahlknecht, Verena Barbieri, Adolf Engl, Giuliano Piccoliori, Christian J Wiedermann\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/geriatrics10010009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives:</b> Frailty screening facilitates the identification of older adults at risk of adverse health outcomes. The Program of Research to Integrate Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy 7 (PRISMA-7) is a widely utilised frailty tool; however, concerns regarding its potential sex bias persist due to item 2, which assigns a frailty point for male sex. This study compared the PRISMA-7 with a modified version, the PRISMA-6 (excluding item 2), to assess their suitability for frailty screening in South Tyrol, Italy. Objectives included evaluating the impact of item 2 on frailty classification and exploring the feasibility of the PRISMA-6 as a more equitable alternative. <b>Methods:</b> A cross-sectional survey of 1695 community-dwelling older adults aged ≥75 years was conducted in South Tyrol. Frailty was assessed using both the PRISMA-7 and PRISMA-6. Sociodemographic, health, and lifestyle data were collected to examine associations with frailty classifications. Logistic regression was applied to identify predictors of frailty for each tool. Agreement between the PRISMA-7 and PRISMA-6 was assessed, and internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. <b>Results:</b> Frailty prevalence was 33.9% with the PRISMA-7 and 27.0% with the PRISMA-6. The PRISMA-7 classified men as frail more frequently than women (34.7% vs. 33.0%), while the PRISMA-6 reversed this trend (men, 21.4%; women, 33.0%). Excluding item 2 improved internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: PRISMA-7, 0.64; PRISMA-6, 0.75) and aligned frailty classifications with predictors such as age, health status, and physical activity. Logistic regression revealed significant sex differences with the PRISMA-7 but not with the PRISMA-6. <b>Conclusions:</b> The PRISMA-7 introduces sex bias by overestimating frailty in men, whereas the PRISMA-6 provides a more equitable and consistent alternative. The findings highlight the PRISMA-6's potential as a reliable tool for unbiased frailty screening. Future research should validate the PRISMA-6 against established frailty tools to support its integration into primary care settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geriatrics\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11755479/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geriatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics10010009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geriatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics10010009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:虚弱筛查有助于识别有不良健康结局风险的老年人。“自主维护综合服务研究计划7”(PRISMA-7)是一个广泛使用的脆弱性工具;然而,由于第2项为男性分配了一个弱点,因此对其潜在性别偏见的担忧仍然存在。本研究比较了PRISMA-7和改良版PRISMA-6(不包括第2项),以评估它们在意大利南蒂罗尔的脆弱性筛查中的适用性。目标包括评价项目2对脆弱性分类的影响,并探讨将prism -6作为更公平的替代方案的可行性。方法:对南蒂罗尔1695名≥75岁的社区老年人进行横断面调查。使用PRISMA-7和PRISMA-6评估虚弱程度。收集社会人口学、健康和生活方式数据,以检查与脆弱分类的关系。应用逻辑回归来确定每个工具的脆弱性预测因子。评估PRISMA-7和PRISMA-6之间的一致性,并使用Cronbach's alpha评估内部一致性。结果:PRISMA-7和PRISMA-6的衰弱患病率分别为33.9%和27.0%。PRISMA-7将男性归类为身体虚弱的频率高于女性(34.7%对33.0%),而PRISMA-6则扭转了这一趋势(男性21.4%;女性,33.0%)。排除项目2提高了内部一致性(Cronbach's alpha: PRISMA-7, 0.64;PRISMA-6, 0.75),并将衰弱分类与年龄、健康状况和身体活动等预测因素相结合。Logistic回归分析结果显示,PRISMA-7与PRISMA-6之间存在显著的性别差异,而与PRISMA-6之间无显著差异。结论:PRISMA-7通过高估男性的脆弱性引入了性别偏见,而PRISMA-6提供了一个更公平和一致的替代方案。这些发现突出了PRISMA-6作为一种可靠的工具进行无偏倚的虚弱筛查的潜力。未来的研究应验证PRISMA-6与现有的脆弱性工具的对比,以支持其与初级保健环境的整合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the PRISMA-7 and a Modified Version (PRISMA-6) for Frailty Screening: Addressing Sex Bias in Community-Dwelling Older Adults.

Background/Objectives: Frailty screening facilitates the identification of older adults at risk of adverse health outcomes. The Program of Research to Integrate Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy 7 (PRISMA-7) is a widely utilised frailty tool; however, concerns regarding its potential sex bias persist due to item 2, which assigns a frailty point for male sex. This study compared the PRISMA-7 with a modified version, the PRISMA-6 (excluding item 2), to assess their suitability for frailty screening in South Tyrol, Italy. Objectives included evaluating the impact of item 2 on frailty classification and exploring the feasibility of the PRISMA-6 as a more equitable alternative. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 1695 community-dwelling older adults aged ≥75 years was conducted in South Tyrol. Frailty was assessed using both the PRISMA-7 and PRISMA-6. Sociodemographic, health, and lifestyle data were collected to examine associations with frailty classifications. Logistic regression was applied to identify predictors of frailty for each tool. Agreement between the PRISMA-7 and PRISMA-6 was assessed, and internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Results: Frailty prevalence was 33.9% with the PRISMA-7 and 27.0% with the PRISMA-6. The PRISMA-7 classified men as frail more frequently than women (34.7% vs. 33.0%), while the PRISMA-6 reversed this trend (men, 21.4%; women, 33.0%). Excluding item 2 improved internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: PRISMA-7, 0.64; PRISMA-6, 0.75) and aligned frailty classifications with predictors such as age, health status, and physical activity. Logistic regression revealed significant sex differences with the PRISMA-7 but not with the PRISMA-6. Conclusions: The PRISMA-7 introduces sex bias by overestimating frailty in men, whereas the PRISMA-6 provides a more equitable and consistent alternative. The findings highlight the PRISMA-6's potential as a reliable tool for unbiased frailty screening. Future research should validate the PRISMA-6 against established frailty tools to support its integration into primary care settings.

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
Geriatrics
Geriatrics 医学-老年医学
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
115
审稿时长
20.03 days
期刊介绍: • Geriatric biology • Geriatric health services research • Geriatric medicine research • Geriatric neurology, stroke, cognition and oncology • Geriatric surgery • Geriatric physical functioning, physical health and activity • Geriatric psychiatry and psychology • Geriatric nutrition • Geriatric epidemiology • Geriatric rehabilitation
×
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