ArticleJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR2022
Development and validation of a shortened and practical frailty index for people with intellectual disabilities.
Article in Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Intellectual Disability Frailty Index Predicts 10-Year Mortality Within the HA-ID Cohort.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2026Article
- Article
- Tools for Detecting Ageing in People with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- [Frailty at the interface of resilience and intrinsic capacity].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Psychometric adequacy of the persian adapted version of the tilburg frailty indicator (P-TFI).BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a shortened and practical frailty index for people with intellectual disabilities.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no widely used instrument to detect frailty in people with intellectual disabilities (IDs). We aimed to develop and validate a shorter and more practical version of a published frailty index for people with IDs.
methodThis study was part of the longitudinal 'Healthy Ageing and Intellectual Disability' study. We included 982 people with IDs aged 50 years and over. The previously developed and validated ID-Frailty Index consisting of 51 deficits was used as the basis for the shortened version, the ID-FI Short Form. Content of the ID-FI Short Form was based on statistics and clinical and practical feasibility. We evaluated the precision and validity of the ID-FI Short Form using the internal consistency, the correlation between the ID-FI Short Form and the original ID-Frailty Index, the agreement in dividing participants in the categories non-frail, pre-frail and frail, and the association with survival.
resultsSeventeen deficits from the original ID-Frailty Index were selected for inclusion in the ID-FI Short Form. All deficits of the ID-FI Short Form are clinically and practically feasible to assess for caregivers and therapists supporting people with ID. We showed acceptable internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha of 0.75. The Pearson correlation between the ID-Frailty Index and the ID-FI Short Form was excellent (r = 0.94, P < 0.001). We observed a good agreement between the full and short forms in dividing the participants in the frailty categories, with a kappa statistic of 0.63. The ID-FI Short Form was associated with survival; with every 1/100 increase on the ID-FI Short Form, the mortality probability increased by 7% (hazard ratio 1.07, P < 0.001).
conclusionThe first validation of the ID-FI Short Form shows it to be a promising, practical tool to assess the frailty status of people with ID.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.