↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Exploring the efficiency of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
218 Mendeley
Title
Exploring the efficiency of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator: a review
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, October 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s130686
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robbert JJ Gobbens, Jos MGA Schols, Marcel ALM van Assen

Abstract

Due to rapidly aging human populations, frailty has become an essential concept, as it identifies older people who have higher risk of adverse outcomes, such as disability, institutionalization, lower quality of life, and premature death. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) is a user-friendly questionnaire based on a multidimensional approach to frailty, assessing physical, psychologic, and social aspects of human functioning. This review aims to explore the efficiency of the TFI in assessing frailty as a means to carry out research into the antecedents and consequences of frailty, and its use both in daily practice and for future intervention studies. Using a multidimensional approach to frailty, in contexts where health care professionals or researchers may have no time to interview or examine the client, we recommend employing the TFI because there is robust evidence of its reliability and validity and it is easy and quick to administer. More studies are needed to establish whether the TFI is suitable for intervention studies not only in the community, but also for specific groups such as patients in the hospital or admitted to an emergency department. We conclude that it is important to not only determine the deficits that frail older people may have, but also to assess their balancing strengths and resources. In order to be able to meet the individual needs of frail older persons, traditional and often fragmented elderly care should be developed toward a more proactive elderly care, in which frail older persons and their informal network are in charge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 218 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 11%
Researcher 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 8%
Professor 13 6%
Other 41 19%
Unknown 62 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 21%
Psychology 12 6%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Sports and Recreations 7 3%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 79 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 August 2019.
All research outputs
#15,879,822
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,044
of 1,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,230
of 331,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#35
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,962 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.