Comparison of frailty among <scp>J</scp>apanese, <scp>B</scp>razilian <scp>J</scp>apanese descendants and <scp>B</scp>razilian community‐dwelling older women

Sampaio, Priscila Yukari Sewo; Sampaio, Ricardo Aurélio Carvalho; Yamada, Minoru; Ogita, Mihoko; Arai, Hidenori

doi:10.1111/ggi.12348

Cited by 9 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We identified that the majority of authors maintained the Japanese term "Kihon Checklist" 11,15,17,20,21 or used similar terms, "Kihon-Checklist" 22 and "Kihon Check Lists." 12 In addition, some authors translated and denominated the checklist as "Basic checklist for frailty"; 23 "Basic questionnaire" and "basic checklist";…”

Section: Kcl Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…24 There is no consensus regarding the division of the KCL domains; some researchers considered the first domain of the KCL as the first five questions (naming it "instrumental activities of daily living -IADL"), 12,17,20,23 whereas others considered it as the sixth to tenth questions, for example. Although the majority of studies divided the domains as aforementioned, exceptions were observed.…”

Section: Kcl Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,10 Furthermore, the next domain includes questions six to ten and has been named "physical strength domain," 11,15,20 "walking status domain," 14,23 "physical domain," 17 "motor function domain,"…”

Section: Kcl Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…24 Questions 11 and 12 represent the "nutritional status domain" 11,14,15,23,25 or the "nutrition domain." 1,10,12,17,20 Questions 13-15 correspond to the "oral function domain," 1,[10][11][12]15,23,25 "eating domain" 17,20 or "dysphagia domain." 14 Questions 16 and 17 capture the "houseboundness domain," 11,15 "socialization domain," 17,20 "staying indoors domain," 23 "withdrawing into one's shell domain" 12 or "seclusion domain."…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,10,12,17,20 Questions 13-15 correspond to the "oral function domain," 1,[10][11][12]15,23,25 "eating domain" 17,20 or "dysphagia domain." 14 Questions 16 and 17 capture the "houseboundness domain," 11,15 "socialization domain," 17,20 "staying indoors domain," 23 "withdrawing into one's shell domain" 12 or "seclusion domain." 1,10 Questions 18-20 constitute the "cognitive function domain," 15,25 "memory domain," 17,20 "cognitive status domain,"…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Systematic review of the Kihon Checklist: Is it a reliable assessment of frailty?

Sampaio

Yamada

et al. 2016

Geriatrics Gerontology Int

Self Cite

218

197

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To investigate whether the Kihon Checklist (KCL) can predict frailty and disability.Methods: The studies analyzed for the present review were retrieved by searching electronic databases and other sources using the keywords "Kihon Checklist" and "Basic Checklist." The articles were restricted to those written in English and published in health sciences journals from the year 2006 until the end of April 2015. To be included in the full analysis, the study had to be primary research and use the KCL as a dependent or independent variable.Results: A total of 62 articles were identified in the initial search, and after screening, 13 articles were included in this review. The KCL was found to be closely correlated with validated assessments of frailty phenotypes. The complete version of the KCL and specific domains have been used as research outcomes to verify frailty in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. KCL domains were applied to evaluate different outcomes, such as depressive mood, functional disability and instrumental activities of daily living limitations. Conclusions:The KCL is a reliable tool for predicting general frailty and frailty aspects in older adults. The KCL was shown to be adequate for cross-cultural studies and to be suitable for addressing frailty demands among elderly in multiple cohorts. The KCL is a short questionnaire, which makes its administration by health promoters easy; thus, it has been used to evaluate the effectiveness of frailty interventions. We strongly recommend use of the KCL in community and clinical practice to assess frailty status. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2016; 16: 893-902.

show abstract

Section: Kcl Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Kcl Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Kcl Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Systematic review of the Kihon Checklist: Is it a reliable assessment of frailty?

Sampaio

Yamada

et al. 2016

Geriatrics Gerontology Int

Self Cite

218

197

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Frailty Risk Patterns and Mortality Prediction in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A 3-Year Longitudinal Study

Yang,

Liu,

Watanabe Miura

et al. 2025

Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Change in subjective health status among frail older Japanese people owing to the coronavirus disease pandemic and characteristics of their responses

Kera

Kawai

Ejiri

et al. 2021

Geriatrics Gerontology Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic remains a major global public health issue, and it has led to restrictions in physical and social activities among community‐dwelling people, including frail older adults. This study aimed to determine the impact of the pandemic on the subjective health status and characteristics of community‐dwelling frail older adults by assessing their knowledge of infection, behaviors and negative psychological response. Methods During October 2019, 720 older adults participated in “The Otassha Study.” A year after the COVID‐19 outbreak, between June 29 and July 31, 2020, a health status questionnaire, comprising questions concerning knowledge about infection, behaviors and psychological responses during the pandemic, was sent to all participants of the health examination in 2019. Respondents were divided into the robust and frail groups, and their responses were compared. Results Although the self‐reported health status of the older adults in both groups was worse in 2020 than in 2019, differences were not observed in the degree of deterioration between the groups. Those in the frail group had fewer resources of information related to COVID‐19 and had fewer coping behaviors for health maintenance compared with the robust group. Conclusion Information gathering and actions aimed at health maintenance tended to be weaker among older adults with frailty, although the influence of COVID‐19 on subjective health status did not differ significantly between robust and frail adults. Therefore, robust and frail older adults may need to adopt different countermeasures to prevent worse health during this pandemic. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2021; 21: 1053–1059.

show abstract

Comparison of frailty among Japanese, Brazilian Japanese descendants and Brazilian community‐dwelling older women

Abstract: The older Brazilian women were likely to be more frail than the participants in other groups. More than the environment itself, the lifestyle and sociodemographic conditions could affect the frailty of older Brazilian women.

Cited by 9 publications

References 22 publications

Systematic review of the Kihon Checklist: Is it a reliable assessment of frailty?

Systematic review of the Kihon Checklist: Is it a reliable assessment of frailty?

Frailty Risk Patterns and Mortality Prediction in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A 3-Year Longitudinal Study

Change in subjective health status among frail older Japanese people owing to the coronavirus disease pandemic and characteristics of their responses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About