↓ Skip to main content

Screening for frailty among older emergency department visitors: Validation of the new FRESH-screening instrument

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Emergency Medicine, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Screening for frailty among older emergency department visitors: Validation of the new FRESH-screening instrument
Published in
BMC Emergency Medicine, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12873-016-0087-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eklund Kajsa, Wilhelmson Katarina, Landahl Sten, Ivanoff-Dahlin Synneve

Abstract

The identification of frail older persons in different health care settings is widely seen as an important step in improving the healthcare system. Screening at an emergency department (ED) should be handled in just a few minutes without the use of tests or measurements. The FRESH-screening was developed for this purpose. This study's aim was to evaluate the FRESH-screening and its construct validity; also assessed were the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for frailty screening. The study had a cross-sectional design. A total of 161 elderly people who sought care at the emergency department at Mölndal Hospital were included. Inclusion criteria were ages ≥80 years or ages 65-79 with at least one chronic disease and dependence in at least one daily living activity. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated to describe the accuracy of the FRESH-screening in identifying those with frailty, as assessed by eight frailty indicators. Sensitivity and specificity were both set at a minimum of 80 %, and a percentage sum ≥150 of the sensitivity and positive prediction was considered a measure of excellent value. Both sensitivity and specificity were high (81 % and 80 %, respectively) when comparing the four questions of the FRESH-screening against the eight frailty indicators. The percentage sum of sensitivity and positive prediction was 173 (81 % + 92 %), thus exceeding the 150 cutoff. This study shows the FRESH-screening to be of excellent clinical value. Additionally, the clinical experience is that the instrument is simple and rapid to use, takes only a few minutes to administer, and requires minimal energy input by older persons.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 69 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Master 10 14%
Other 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Other 18 25%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 27%
Engineering 5 7%
Psychology 4 6%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 10 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2022.
All research outputs
#14,732,278
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#447
of 745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,078
of 363,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 363,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.