Reliability, validity and minimal detectable change of the Chinese Version of the Assessment of Physical Activity in Frail Older People (APAFOP-C).

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) is essential in mitigating frailty syndrome, and it is necessary to measure PA in older adults with frailty. Assessment of Physical Activity in Frail Older People (APAFOP) is a suitable patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for assessing PA among older adults with frailty. This study aimed to determine the reliability, validity and minimal detectable change of the Chinese version of the APAFOP (APAFOP-C). METHODS: This cross-sectional validation study was designed to measure the reliability and criterion validity of the APAFOP-C with 124 frail community-residing older adults. APAFOP-C was completed twice within an interval of 7-17 days to determine test-retest reliability. The investigator triangulation method was used to investigate inter-rater reliability, and a pedometer was used as the reference measurement to assess the criterion validity. Reliability and criterion validity were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1), Pearson correlation coefficient for normally distributed variables, Spearman correlation coefficient, Wilcoxon signed-rank test for skewed variables, and the minimal detectable change at 95% level of confidence (MDC95). Agreement assessment was conducted using Bland-Altman plots for inter-rater reliability and criterion validity. Kendall's W test assessed absolute agreement among three raters in inter-rater reliability. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to evaluate whether any particular day was more representative of certain daily activities. RESULTS: Total PA on any arbitrarily chosen day illustrates daily activity (Z= -0.84, p = 0.40). The APAFOP-C exhibited strong-to-very strong test-retest reliability (ICC2,1=0.73-0.97; Spearman ρ = 0.67-0.89), and the total PA score demonstrated MDC95 < 10%. Inter-rater reliability was also strong-to-very strong (ICC2,1=0.96-0.98; Spearman ρ = 0.88-1.00), and moderate criterion validity when compared with total PA score on pedometer readings (Spearman ρ = 0.61). Limits of agreement among different raters regarding the APAFOP-C and the pedometer were narrow. CONCLUSION: The APAFOP-C was found to have limited but acceptable psychometric properties for measuring PA among community-dwelling older adults with frailty in China. It was a feasible comparative PROM for assessing PA worldwide. Practitioners can develop individualized exercise programs for frail older adults and efficiently track changes in PA utilizing the APAFOP-C.

Issues and implications of the life-sustaining treatment decision act: comparing the data from the survey and clinical data of inpatients at the end-of-life process.

BACKGROUND: Health professionals had difficulty choosing the right time to discuss life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) since the Korean Act was passed in 2018. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand how patients decide to undergo LSTs in clinical practice and to compare the perceptions of these decisions among health professionals, patients, and families with suggestions to support the self-directed decisions of patients. RESEARCH DESIGN: A retrospective observational study with electronic medical records (EMRs) and a descriptive survey was used. METHODS: The data obtained from the EMRs included all adult patients who died in end-of-life care at a university hospital in 2021. We also conducted a survey of 214 health professionals and 100 patients and their families (CNUH IRB approval no. 2022-07-006). RESULTS: Based on the EMR data of 916 patients in end-of-life care, 78.4% signed do-not-attempt-resuscitation consents, 5.6% completed the documents for LSTs, and 10.2% completed both forms. LST decisions were mostly made by family members (81.5%). Most survey participants agreed that meaningless LSTs should be suspended, and the decision should be made by patients. Patients and family members (42-56%) and health professionals (56-58%) recommended discussing LST suspension when the patient is still conscious but with predicted deterioration of their condition. The suffering experienced by the patient was considered to be a priority by most patients (58%) and families (54%) during the decision-making process, while health professionals considered "the possibility of the patient's recovery" to be the highest priority (43-55%). CONCLUSIONS: There is still a significant discrepancy in the perceptions of LST decisions among health professionals, patients, and their families despite high awareness of the Act. This situation makes it challenging to implement the Act to ensure respect for the rights of patients to self-determination and dignified end-of-life. Further effort is needed to improve the awareness of LSTs and to clarify the ambiguity of document preparation timing.