Which older people in the community have the highest clinical-functional vulnerability?

Geriatrics, Gerontology and Aging

Endereço:
Avenida Nossa Senhora de Copacabana,500 - 609 - Copacabana
Rio de Janeiro / RJ
22020001
Site: http://ggaging.com
Telefone: (21) 2285-8115
ISSN: 2447-2123
Editor Chefe: Patrick Alexander Wachholz
Início Publicação: 10/10/2007
Periodicidade: Anual
Área de Estudo: Ciências da Saúde, Área de Estudo: Educação física, Área de Estudo: Enfermagem, Área de Estudo: Farmácia, Área de Estudo: Fisioterapia e terapia ocupacional, Área de Estudo: Fonoaudiologia, Área de Estudo: Medicina, Área de Estudo: Nutrição, Área de Estudo: Odontologia, Área de Estudo: Saúde coletiva, Área de Estudo: Serviço social, Área de Estudo: Multidisciplinar

Which older people in the community have the highest clinical-functional vulnerability?

Ano: 2021 | Volume: 15 | Número: Não se aplica
Autores: Aline Martins Alvesa; Nathália de Oliveira Andradea; Maria Eduarda Leite Facinaa; Beatriz Rodrigues de Souza Melob; Aline Cristina Martins Gratãob; Tatiana Carvalho Reis Martinsa; Bruna Moretti Luchesia
Autor Correspondente: Bruna Moretti Luchesi | [email protected]

Palavras-chave: frail elderly; primary health care; family health strategy; health vulnerability

Resumos Cadastrados

Resumo Inglês:

OBJECTIVE: To identify the factors related to clinical-functional vulnerability in older people.
METHODS: This cross-sectional quantitative study was conducted in 2018/2019 with 492 older adults registered in Family Health Strategy units in the city of Três Lagoas, MS, Brazil. Sociodemographic data were collected and the Clinical-Functional Vulnerability Index (CFVI-20) was applied (possible score 0-40; higher scores indicate greater vulnerability). A multinomial logistic regression was performed to identify the risk factors for clinical-functional vulnerability.
RESULTS: The sample’s mean age was 70.80 years (SD, 7.82) and the mean CFVI-20 score was 9.25 (SD, 7.09), with 17.07% at high risk of clinical-functional vulnerability, 38.82% at moderate risk, and 44.11% at low risk. Low education, social isolation, difficulty sleeping, and being female were risk factors for moderate vulnerability. On the other hand, low education, social isolation, difficulty sleeping, physical inactivity, being female, not using alcohol, and not participating in social groups were risk factors for high vulnerability.
CONCLUSIONS: The CFVI-20 is convenient for primary health care contexts, since it is fast and easy to apply. By recognizing factors related to vulnerability, specific preventive actions can be planned.