Objective: The aim was to translate and adapt the English PFFS for use in Malaysian clinical settings.
Methods: The original English PFFS underwent forward and backward-translation by two bilingual translators to and from the Malay language. A finalized version, the PFFS-Malay (PFFS-M), was formed after expert reviewers' consensus and was pilot tested with 20 patients, 20 caregivers, 16 healthcare assistants, 17 nurses and 22 doctors. Score agreement between patients and their caregivers and among healthcare professionals were assessed. All participants rated their understanding of the scale using the feasibility survey forms.
Results: A total of 95 participants were included. There were high percentages of scoring agreements among all participants on the scale (66.7% to 98.9%). Overall feedback from all respondents were positive and supported the face validity of the PFFS-M.
Conclusion: The PFFS-M reflects an accurate translation for the Malaysian population. The scale is usable and feasible and has face validity. Reliability and predictive validity assessments of the PFFS-M are currently underway.
METHODS: A 17-item questionnaire was developed to assess nutrition practices and administered to dialysis managers of 150 HD centers, identified through the National Renal Registry. Nutritional outcomes of 4362 patients enabled crosscutting comparisons as per dietitian accessibility and center sector.
RESULTS: Dedicated dietitian (18%) and visiting/shared dietitian (14.7%) service availability was limited, with greatest accessibility at government centers (82.4%) > non-governmental organization (NGO) centers (26.7%) > private centers (15.1%). Nutritional monitoring varied across HD centers as per albumin (100%) > normalized protein catabolic rate (32.7%) > body mass index (BMI, 30.7%) > dietary intake (6.0%). Both sector and dietitian accessibility was not associated with achieving albumin ≥40 g/L. However, NGO centers were 36% more likely (p = 0.030) to achieve pre-dialysis serum creatinine ≥884 μmol/L compared to government centers, whilst centers with dedicated dietitian service were 29% less likely (p = 0.017) to achieve pre-dialysis serum creatinine ≥884 μmol/L. In terms of BMI, private centers were 32% more likely (p = 0.022) to achieve BMI ≥ 25.0 kg/m2 compared to government centers. Private centers were 62% less likely (p
Methods: In Phase 1, a multidisciplinary team identified domains for measurement, operationalized impairment levels, and reviewed visual languages for the scale. In Phase 2, feedback was sought from health professionals and the general public. In Phase 3, 366 participants completed preliminary testing on the revised draft, including 162 UK paramedics, and rated the scale on feasibility and usability. In Phase 4, following translation into Malay, the final prototype was tested in 95 participants in Peninsular Malaysia and Borneo.
Results: The final scale incorporated 14 domains, each conceptualized with 3-6 response levels. All domains were rated as "understood well" by most participants (range 64-94%). Percentage agreement with positive statements regarding appearance, feasibility, and usefulness ranged from 66% to 95%. Overall feedback from health-care professionals supported its content validity.
Conclusions: The PFFS is comprehensive, feasible, and appears generalizable across countries, and has face and content validity. Investigation into the reliability and predictive validity of the scale is currently underway.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study from 4 primary care clinics where 240 patients aged >60 years and their caregivers were enrolled. Patients were assigned to a nurse or a health care assistant (HCA) for 2 separate PFFS-M assessments administered by HCPs of the same profession, as well as by a doctor during the first visit (inter-rater reliability). Patients were also administered the Self-Assessed Report of Personal Capacity & Healthy Ageing (SEARCH) tool, a 40-item frailty index, by a research officer. The correlation between patients' PFFS-M scores and SEARCH tool scores determined convergent validity. Patients returned 1 week later for PFFS-M reassessment by the same HCPs (test-retest reliability). Caregivers completed the PFFS-M for the patient at both clinic visits. Classification cut-points for the PFFS-M were derived against frailty categories defined through the SEARCH tool.
RESULTS: The inter-rater (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.93)] and test-retest (ICC = 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92-0.95]) reliability between all raters was excellent, including by patients' education levels. The convergent validity was moderate (r = 0.637, p < 0.001), including for varying educational background. PFFS-M categories were identified as: 0-3, no frailty; 4-5, at risk of frailty; 6-8, mild frailty; 9-12, moderate frailty; and >13, severe frailty.
CONCLUSION: PFFS-M is a reliable and valid tool with frailty severity scores now established for use of this tool in primary care clinics.