Measurement properties of instruments to measure the fatigue domain of vitality capacity in community-dwelling older people: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Vitality capacity (VC) is a key domain of intrinsic capacity (IC) and is the underlying biophysiological aspect of IC. Energy and metabolism (E&M) is one of the domains of VC. Fatigue is one of the main characteristics of E&M. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this umbrella review are (i) to identify the available instruments suitable for measuring fatigue in community-dwelling older adults and (ii) to critically review the measurement properties of the identified instruments. DESIGN: Umbrella review. SETTING: Healthcare. SUBJECTS: Community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: PubMed and Web of Knowledge were systematically screened for systematic reviews and meta-analysis reporting on fatigue instruments resulting in 2,263 articles (last search 5 December 2022). The COSMIN checklist was used to appraise psychometric properties and the AMSTAR for assessing methodological quality. Data on fatigue instruments, construct, reference period, assessment method, validated population, reliability, validity, responsiveness and predictive validity on negative health outcomes were extracted. RESULTS: 10 systematic reviews and 1 meta-analysis were included in this study. 70 fatigue instruments were identified in the literature and 21 were originally designed for fatigue. The Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale (PFS) and Visual Analogue scale (VAS-F), Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue (FACIT-F) presented good psychometric properties. CONCLUSIONS: The FSS, FIS, FACIT-F, PFS and the VAS-F presented good psychometric properties in various conditions. Therefore, these instruments could be used to quantify trajectories in the domain E&M in the context of VC in community-dwelling older adults.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.