請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/15755
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 張睿詒(Ray-E Chang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Yin-Cheng Chen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳殷正 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-07T17:51:27Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2020-09-04 | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2020-08-07 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. 中華民國內政部統計處。https://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/news_detail.aspx?sn=13742 2. 中華民國發展委員會:人口推估。2018。https://www.ndc.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=84223C65B6F94D72 3. J Oeppen, et al. Broken Limits to Life Expectancy. Science 2002: 296(5570): 1029-31. 4. JA salomon, et al. Healthy life expectancy for 187 countries, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012;380: 2144–62. 5. GBD 2016 DALYs and HALE Collaborators: Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years(DALYs) for 333 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 Lancet 2017;390:1260–344. 6. GBD 2015 Healthcare Access and Quality Collaborators. Healthcare Access and Quality Index based on mortality from causes amenable to personal health care in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2015: a novel analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2017;390:231-66. 7. 吳昀麇等人。全球疾病負擔研究中的健康照護品質排名-以慢性腎臟病為例。臺灣衛誌 2017;36(4):315-8. 8. CC Wu, et al. Challenges of measuring the Healthcare Access and Quality Index. Lancet. 2018;391:428-9. 9. GBD 2016 Healthcare Access and Quality Collaborators. Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 2018; 391: 2236–71. 10. United States Renal Data System. 2015 USRDS annual data report: Epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD, 2015. 11. 2020健康國民白皮書。行政院衛生福利部。107年8月。https://www.mohw.gov.tw/cp-26-36493-1.html 12. 公共衛生學中册(修訂五版)。王榮德、江東亮、陳為堅、詹長權 編。國立臺灣大學出版中心、財團法人陳拱北預防醫學基金會。2015年06月。 13. LP Fried, et al. Frailty in Older Adults: Evidence for a Phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001;56:M146–M156. 14. NF Woods, et al. Frailty: emergence and consequences in women aged 65 and older in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53:1321–30. 15. K Rockwood, et al. Frailty in relation to the accumulation of deficits. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2007;62:722–7. 16. TE Strandberg, et al. Frailty in elderly people. Lancet 2007;369:1328–9. 17. RJ Gobbens, et al: Toward a conceptual definition of frail community dwelling older people. Nurs Outlook 2010;58:76-86. 18. E Kelaiditi, et al. Cognitive frailty: rational and definition from an (I.A.N.A./I.A.G.G.) International Consensus Group. J Nutr Health Aging 2013;17:726–34. 19. L Vaughan, et al. Depression and frailty in later life: a systematic review. Clin Interv Aging 2015;10:1947-58. 20. D Facal, et al. Cognitive frailty: A conceptual systematic review and an operational proposal for future research. Maturitas 2019;121:48–56. 21. F Panza, et al. Different Cognitive Frailty Models and Health- and Cognitive-related Outcomes in Older Age: From Epidemiology to Prevention. J Alzheimer’s Disease 2018;62:993–1012. 22. S Bunt, et al. Social frailty in older adults: a scoping review. Eur J Ageing 2017; 14:323–34. 23. 衛生福利部國民健康署:老人健康促進。https://www.hpa.gov.tw/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=40 24. 衛生福利部106-109年中程施政計畫。https://www.mohw.gov.tw/cp-3263-29952-1.htm 25. 新北市衛生局:新北動健康。https://f4a.tw/index 26. MGM Olde Rikkert, et al. Geriatric syndromes: medical misnomer or progress in geriatrics. Neth J Med 2003; 61: 83–7. 27. KI Sharon, et al. Geriatric Syndromes: Clinical, Research and Policy Implications of a Core Geriatric Concept. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007; 55: 780–91. 28. CO Weiss. Frailty and chronic diseases in older adults. Clin Geriatr Med 2011; 27:39–52. 29. SL Szanton, et al. Socioeconomic status is associated with frailty: the Women's Health and Aging Studies. J Epidemiol Community Health 2010;64:63–7. 30. C Hirsch, et al. The association of race with frailty: the cardiovascular health study. Ann Epidemiol 2006; 16:545–53. 31. MJ Peterson, et al. Physical activity as a preventative factor for frailty: the health, aging, and body composition study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2009; 64A: 61-8. 32. JM Beasley, et al. Protein intake and incident frailty in the Women's Health Initiative observational study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010; 58: 1063–71. 33. H Shirooka, et al. Association between comprehensive health literacy and frailty level in community-dwelling older adults: A cross-sectional study in Japan. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2017;17:804-9. 34. RA Heuberger, et al. The Frailty Syndrome: A Comprehensive Review. J Nutri Geronto and Geriat 2011; 30: 315-68. 35. X Chen, et al. Frailty syndrome: an overview. Clin Interv Aging 2014; 9: 433–41. 36. KL Johansen, et al. Significance of frailty among dialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2007; 18: 2960–7. 37. Y Bao, et al. Frailty, dialysis initiation, and mortality in end-stage renal disease. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172: 1071–7. 38. ER Wilhelm-Leen, et al. Frailty and chronic kidney disease: the Third National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey. Am J Med 2009;122:664-71. 39. BC Van Munster, et al. Discriminative value of frailty screening instruments in end-stage renal disease. Clin Kidney J 2016; 9: 606–10. 40. K Rockwood, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ 2005;173:489–95. 41. J Morley, et al. A simple frailty questionnaire (FRAIL) predicts outcomes in middle aged African Americans. J Nutr Health Aging 2012; 16: 601–8. 42. I Aprahamian, et al. Screening for Frailty With the FRAIL Scale: A Comparison With the Phenotype Criteria. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2017;18:592-6. 43. G Kojima. Quick and simple frail scale predicts incident activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL) disabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2018;19:1063-8. 44. G Kojima. Frailty defined by frail scale as a predictor of mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2018;19:480-3. 45. LJ Dong, et al. Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the FRAIL Scale in Chinese Community-Dwelling Older Adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2018;19:12-7. 46. 照顧管理評估量表。衛生福利部。民國106年3月28日。https://www.mohw.gov.tw/dl-15878-85fb3fa5-9172-431a-986e-35d16c6ff701.html 47. KE Ensrud, et al. A comparison of frailty indexes for the prediction of falls, disability, fractures, and mortality in older men. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009;57:492-8. 48. AB Mitnitski, et al. Accumulation of deficits as a proxy measure of aging. Scientific World Journal 2001;1:323–36. 49. R Kenneth, et al. Changes in relative fitness and frailty across the adult lifespan: evidence from the Canadian National Population Health Survey. CMAJ 2011;183:E487-E494. 50. R Romero-Ortuno. The frailty instrument for primary care of the survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe predicts mortality similarly to a frailty index based on comprehensive geriatric assessment. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2013;13:497–504. 51. R Romero-Ortuno, et al. A frailty instrument for primary care for those aged 75 years or more: findings from the survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe, a longitudinal population-based cohort study (SHARE-FI75+). BMJ Open 2014;4:e006645. 52. K Rockwood, et al. A Comparison of Two Approaches to Measuring Frailty in Elderly People. J Geronto 2007;62A:738–43. 53. TK Malmstrom, et al. A comparison of four frailty models. J Am Geriatr Soc 2014;62:721-6 54. C Blanc-Bisson, et al. A randomized controlled trial on early physiotherapy intervention versus usual care in acute care unit for elderly: potential benefits in light of dietary intakes. J Nutr Health Aging 2008; 12: 395–9. 55. Y Obi, et al. Latest consensus and update on protein-energy wasting in chronic kidney disease. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2015, 18: 254–62. 56. A Rodondi, et al. Zinc increases the effects of essential amino acids-whey protein supplements in frail elderly. J Nutr Health Aging 2009; 13: 491–7. 57. RA Dhonukshe-Rutten, et al. Vitamin B-12 status is associated with bone mineral content and bone mineral density in frail elderly women but not in men. J Nutr 2003; 133: 801–7. 58. J McMinn, et al. Investigation and management of unintentional weight loss in older adults. Br Med J 2011; 342: 1732–41. 59. MD O’Connell, et al. Do the effects of testosterone on muscle strength, physical function, body composition, and quality of life persist six months after treatment in intermediate-frail and frail elderly men? J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96: 454–8. 60. JE Morley. Developing novel therapeutic approaches to frailty. Curr Pharm Des 2009; 15: 3384–95. 61. J Apostolo, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pre-frailty and frailty progression in older adults: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2018; 16:140–232. 62. MTE Puts, et al. Interventions to prevent or reduce the level of frailty in community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review of the literature and international policies. Age and Ageing 2017; 46:383–92. 63. LK Liu, et al. Age-related skeletal muscle mass loss and physical performance in Taiwan: implications to diagnostic strategy of sarcopenia in Asia. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2013;13:964–71. 64. K Rockwood, et al: a report from the 3(rd) Joint Workshop of IAGG/WHO/SFGG, Athens, Jan 2012. Can Geriatr J 2012;15:31–6. 65. AJ Cruz-Jentoft, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing 2010;39:412-23. 66. RA Fielding, et al. Sarcopenia: an undiagnosed condition in older adults. Current consensus definition: prevalence, etiology, and consequences. International working group on sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2011;12:249-56. 67. SA Studenski, et al. The FNIH sarcopenia project: rationale, study description, conference recommendations, and final estimates. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2014;69:547-58. 68. LK Chen, et al. Sarcopenia in Asia: consensus report of the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2014;15:95-101. 69. D Yoshida, et al. Using two different algorithms to determine the prevalence of sarcopenia. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2014;14 Suppl 1:46-51. 70. ES Lee, et al. Prevalence of Sarcopenia in Healthy Korean Elderly Women. J Bone Metab 2015;22:191-5. 71. P Han, et al. Prevalence and Factors Associated With Sarcopenia in Suburb-dwelling Older Chinese Using the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia Definition. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2016;71:529-35. 72. R Yu, et al. Incremental predictive value of sarcopenia for incident fracture in an elderly Chinese cohort: results from the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOs) Study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2014;15:551-8. 73. WJ Lee, et al. Comparisons of sarcopenia defined by IWGS and EWGSOP criteria among older people: results from the I-Lan longitudinal aging study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013;14:528.e1-7. 74. CY Chen, et al. The prevalence of subjective frailty and factors associated with frailty in Taiwan. Arch Geront and Geriatr 2010;50:S43–S47. 75. LM Verbrugge, et al. The disablement process. Social Science Medicine 1994;38:1–14. 76. Constitution of World Health Organization. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000004-0119.pdf 77. RC Petersen, et al. Mild cognitive impairment: an overview. CNS Spectr 2008;13: 45-53. 78. P Aisen, et al. Treatment for MCI: is the evidence sufficient? Neurology, 2008;70: 2020-1. 79. JA Avila-Funes, et al. Cognitive impairment improves the predictive validity of the phenotypeof frailty for adverse health outcomes: The Three-City Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009;57:453–61. 80. JA Avila-Funes, et al. Is frailty a prodromal stage of vasculardementia? Results from the three-city study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012;60:1708–12. 81. A Deirdre, et al. Frailty and cognitive impairment—A review of the evidence and causal mechanisms. Ageing Res Reviews 2013;12:840-51. 82. MS Albert, et al. The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s dementia: J Alzheimer’s Assoc 2011;7:270–279. 83. K Abdulrab, et al. Subjective memory impairement. a review of its definitions indicates the need for a comprehensive set of standardised avalidated criteria. European Phychiatry 2008;23:321-330. 84. H Shimada, et al. Cognitive Frailty and Incidence of Dementia in Older Persons. J Prevent Alzheimer’s Dis 2018;5:42-8. 85. M Roppolo, et al. Cognitive frailty in italian community-dwelling older adults: prevalence rate and its association with disability. J Nutr Health Aging 2017;21:632-6. 86. WJ Lee, et al. Cognitive frailty predicting all-cause mortality among community-living older adults in Taiwan: A 4-year nationwide population-based cohort study. PLoS ONE 2018;13(7): e0200447. 87. MF Folstein, et al. Minimental state: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189–98. 88. ZS Nasreddine, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005;53:695–9. 89. R Rosli, et al. Cognitive assessment tools in Asia: a systematic review. Int Psychogeriatr 2016;28:189-210. 90. CF Tsai, et al. Psychometrics of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and its subscales: validation of the Taiwanese version of the MoCA and an item response theory analysis. Int Psychogeriatr 2012;24:651–8. 91. MA Abd Razad, et al. Validity of screening tools for dementia and mild cognitive impairment among the elderly in primary health care: a systematic review. Public Health 2019;169:84-92. 92. H Makizako, et al. Social Frailty in Community-Dwelling Older Adults as a Risk Factor for Disability. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2015;16:1003.e7-11. 93. N Teo, et al. Social Frailty and Functional Disability: Findings From the Singapore Longitudinal Ageing Studies. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2017;18:637.e13-19. 94. K Tsutsumimoto, et al. Association of Social Frailty With Both Cognitive and Physical Deficits Among Older People. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2017;18:603-607. 95. H Makizako, et al. Social frailty leads to the development of physical frailty among physically non-frail adults: a four-year follow-up longitudinal cohort study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15:490-9 96. B Xie, et al. Components and Indicators of Frailty Measures: A Literature Review. J Frailty Aging 2017;6(2):76-82. 97. B Bessa, et al. Assessing the social dimension of frailty in old age: A systematic review. Arch Geront and Geriatr 2018;78:101–13. 98. HC Hsu, et al. Trajectories of frailty and related factors of the older people in Taiwan. Exp Aging Res 2015;41:104-14. 99. CT Chao, et al. Simple self-report FRAIL scale might be more closely associated with dialysis complications than other frailty screening instruments in rural chronic dialysis patients. Nephrology 2015;20:321–8. 100. Y Sun, et al. A Nationwide Survey of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia, Including Very Mild Dementia, in Taiwan. PLoS ONE 9(6): e100303. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100303. 101. CH Huang, et al. Impact of Health Literacy on Frailty among Community-Dwelling Seniors. J Clin Med 2018;7:E481. 102. WJ Lee, et al. The synergic effects of frailty on disability associated with urbanization, multimorbidity, and mental health: implications for public health and medical care. Scientific Reports 2018;8:14125 103. G Onder, et al. ACE inhibitors may reduce muscle loss. Lancet 2002;359:926–30. 104. KA Willey, et al. Battling insulin resistance in elderly obese people with type 2 diabetes: bring on the heavy weights. Diabetes Care 2003;26:1580–8. 105. CS Blaum, et al. Is hyperglycemia associated with frailty status in older women? J Am Geriatr Soc 2009;57:840–7. 106. MG Shlipak, et al. The presence of frailty in elderly persons with chronic renal insufficiency. Am J Kidney Dis 2004;43:861–7. 107. ER Wilhelm-Leen, et al. Frailty and chronic kidney disease: The Third National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey. Am J Med 2009;122:664–71. 108. NN Ahmed, et al. Frailty in Parkinson's disease and its clinical implications. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2008;14:334–7. 109. K Yaffe, et al. Depressive symptoms and risk of mortality in frail, community-living elderly persons. Am J Geriatr Psych 2003;11:561–7. 110. F Retornaz, et al. Usefulness of frailty markers in the assessment of the health and functional status of older cancer patients referred for chemotherapy: a pilot study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2008;63:518–22. 111. KL Flood, et al. Geriatric syndromes in elderly patients admitted to an oncology-acute care for elders unit. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:2298–303. 112. CP Wen, et al. All-cause mortality attributable to chronic kidney disease: a prospective cohort study based on 462 293 adults in Taiwan. Lancet 2008;371: 2173-82. 113. 國家衛生研究院與臺灣腎臟醫學會。2015臺灣腎病年報。 114. 衛生福利部中央健康保險署重要統計資料。https://www.nhi.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=D529CAC4D8F8E77B topn=CDA985A80C0DE710 115. PP Reese, et al. Physical performance and frailty in chronic kidney disease. Am J Nephrol 2013;38:307–15. 116. HN Mansur, et al. Frailty and quality of life: A cross-sectional study of Brazilian patients with pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease. Health and Qual of Life Outcomes, 2014;12:27. 117. A Montesanto, et al. Glomerular filtration rate in the elderly and in the oldest old: Correlation with frailty and mortality. Age 2014;36:9641. 118. LS Dalrymple, et al. Kidney function and prevalent and incident frailty. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2013;8:2091–9. 119. B Roshanravan, et al. A prospective study of frailty in nephrology-referred patients with CKD. Am J Kidney Dis 2012;60:912–21. 120. A Hart, et al. Cystatin C and frailty in older men. J Am Geriat Soc 2013;61:1530–6. 121. C Delgado, et al. Association of Frailty based on self-reported physical function with directly measured kidney function and mortality. BMC Nephrology 2015;16: 203. 122. J Pugh, et al. Frailty and comorbidity are independent predictors of outcome in patients referred for pre-dialysis education. Clin Kidney J 2016;9:324–9. 123. KL Johansen, et al. Frailty and Dialysis Initiation. Semin Dial. 2013;26(6):690–6. 124. NG Kutner, et al. Correlates of ADL difficulty in a large hemodialysis cohort. Hemodialysis international symposium on home hemodialysis 2014;18:70–7. 125. MA McAdams-DeMarco, et al. Frailty as a novel predictor of mortality and hospitalization in individuals of all ages undergoing hemodialysis. J Am Geriatr Soc 2013;61:896–901. 126. TA Alfaadhel, et al. Frailty and mortality in dialysis: Evaluation of a clinical frailty scale. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2015;10:832–40. 127. M Bossola, et al.“Mini Mental State Examination over time in chronic hemodialysis patients,”J Psychosomat Res 2011;71:50-4. 128. AS Buchman, et al. Kidney function is associated with the rate of cognitive decline in the elderly. Neurology 2009;73:920–7. 129. T Etgen, et al. Chronic kidney disease and cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Nephrol 2012;35:474–82. 130. UG Bronas, et al. Cognitive Impairment in Chronic Kidney Disease: Vascular Milieu and the Potential Therapeutic Role of Exercise. BioMed Res Int 2017;2017:2726369. 131. M Kurella, et al. Chronic kidney disease and cognitive impairment in the elderly: the health, aging, and body composition study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005;16:2127–33. 132. F Wang, et al. Level of kidney function correlates with cognitive decline. Am J Nephrol 2010;32:117–21. 133. C Helmer, et al. Chronic kidney disease, cognitive decline, and incident dementia: the 3C Study. Neurology 2011;77: 2043–51. 134. MK Tamura, et al. Cognitive Impairment and Progression of CKD. Am J Kidney Dis 2016; 68:77–83. 135. JM Wardlaw, et al. Neuroimaging standards for research into small vessel disease and its contribution to ageing and neurodegeneration. Lancet Neurol 2013;12:822-38. 136. K Miwa, et al. Chronic kidney disease is associated with dementia independent of cerebral small vessel disease. Neurology 2014;82:1051–7. 137. KC Cheng, et al. Patients with chronic kidney disease are at an elevated risk of dementia: a population-based cohort study in Taiwan. BMC Nephrol 2012;13:129. 138. Z Shen, et al. Chronic kidney disease-related physical frailty and cognitive impairment: a systemic review. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2017;17:529–44. 139. Hair JF, et al. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivariate Data Analysis 2017;2:17-23. 140. Barthel DW, et al. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J 1965;14:61-5. 141. Lawton MP, et al. Assessment of older people: selfmaintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969;9:179-86. 142. 邱瓊萱等(2018)。「慢性腎臟病患者健康識能評量工具之發展與應用評估計畫(105-106年)」。衛生福利部國民健康署委託研究計劃。Available at: https://www.grb.gov.tw/search/planDetail?id=11770795 docId=481934 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/15755 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 研究目的:臺灣已於民國107年3月進入高齡社會,老年人健康與照護是重要議題,尤其是會導致老年人依賴的失能,更加值得注意。在2016年,臺灣十大失能調整生命年(DALY)的前十大原因中,糖尿病(DM)(排名第一)和慢性腎臟病(CKD)(排名第十)造成的DALY是少數幾個高於全球均值的疾病。因為DM後期也會進入CKD狀態,CKD可謂是兩者共同最終途徑,臺灣需要特別關注CKD造成的失能。衰弱是失能的前期,仍具可逆性,是防止失能的關鍵時期。傳統衰弱定義主要侷限於身體功能面向,不過衰弱的概念持續進展,全面的衰弱應涵蓋更多面向,包括心理和社會面向的衰弱。心理面向的衰弱目前以較多證據的認知性衰弱(CF)代表,輕度認知障礙為衰弱指標;社會性衰弱(SF)則以缺乏資源滿足個人社會需求的概念來陳述。根據以往的研究,在CKD族群,身體性衰弱(PF)與腎絲球過濾率呈負相關,但與CF和SF之間的關係尚不清楚。本研究針對一個CKD/HD/PD世代進行PF、CF和SF的調查,並闡述三種衰弱及其危險因子和預後指標的關係,期望藉此找出可介入的危險因子,並了解三種衰弱對預後的衝擊,提供台灣因應CKD造成失能重大危害的最佳應對之道。 研究方法:本研究為前瞻性多中心調查研究,納入符合收案標準的CKD/HD/PD病人進行研究。PF以SOF測量,SOF量表總共有3個項目,每個項目計1分:0分是健壯,1分是衰弱前期,等於或超過2分是衰弱。CF以MoCA測量,MoCA量表:MoCA >= 24為正常,MoCA <= 23為MCI,但排除MoCA <=19因為恐有嚴重認知障礙已造成失能了。SF以Makizako量表測量,Makizako量表共有5個項目,每個項目計1分:0分是健壯,1分是衰弱前期,等於或超過2分是衰弱。失能狀況以ADL和IADL來共同來評估。一般健康識能由基本,溝通和批評識能組成。腎臟病健康識能包括腎臟基本知識、CKD預防、日常腎臟健康和促進、CKD飲食和藥物使用。同時也收集受試者的基本資料及相關檢驗報告共同分析。本研究提出以結合PF、CF及SF為整體的全面性衰弱模型架構來評估衰弱,並針對三種衰弱與其危險因子,以及三種衰弱與預後指標,分別進行分析比較,同時採用結構方程式來檢驗整體模型配適情形,以p < 0.05為顯著性標準。 研究結果:本研究共收案337位CKD病人,233位PD病人,154位HD病人。在CKD族群,PF方面,64.26%為健壯,26.13%為衰弱前期,9.61%為衰弱。CF方面,68.46%為正常,31.5%為衰弱。SF方面,45.21%為健壯,31.14%為衰弱前期,23.65%為衰弱。傳統身體性衰弱評估非衰弱的病人實際上仍有超過3成尚有CF或SF。衰弱相較於健壯者導致失能的風險:PF(OR = 14.14,p<0.05),CF(OR = 13.38,p<0.05)和SF(OR = 9.57,p<0.05)。三種衰弱和年齡、性別、運動,共病、單身、獨居及腎臟病健康識能等危險因子各有不同顯著相關。調整上述因子後,仍與年齡、運動、共病、單身及腎臟病健康識能顯著相關。PF與eGFR呈負相關(p <0.05),CF與eGFR呈微弱負相關(p < 0.1),SF則與eGFR無關。三種衰弱皆和營養相關指標,包括白蛋白、血紅素、血脂肪等有不同程度負相關。三種衰弱都和失能顯著相關,也和門急住診利用增加相關。HD和PD族群也和CKD族群有相近的結果,他們的危險因子相關性較CKD族群少,但失能和醫療利用增加亦皆達顯著相關,HD和PD都有更顯著的社會性衰弱。用結構方程式檢驗全面性衰弱理論架構顯示尚可接受模型配置,腎臟功能與三種衰弱皆達顯著負相關,而三種衰弱也顯著相關於失能。 研究討論:在CKD族群PF的盛行率為9.61%,高於普通人群(5%)約一倍;CF的盛行率(31.5%)也遠高於一般人群(18%)。SF的盛行率亦高達23.65%,CKD病人整體衰弱的情形非常驚人,傳統身體性衰弱評估也大大低估病人的實際衰弱狀況。三種衰弱和年齡均呈負相關,遺傳因子、抽菸、喝酒及檳榔與三種衰弱皆未相關,推測這些因子影響生命早期,對老年的影響式微。運動可減少PF,甚至也可以降低SF及CF,更廣泛的運動概念的介入是可採行策略。共病理論上會增加衰弱風險,本研究病人三高控制良好,所以衰弱風險增加並不顯著,有效的慢性共病控制應也是防治衰弱的重要策略。單身、獨居、貧窮等社會環境因子也會增加衰弱,尤其是SF。在PD族群獨居者有顯著較高SF,HD族群貧窮且獨居者有更高的SF,獨居透析病人的社會資源缺乏與支持不足要更加重視,應避免上述族群與社會互動減少,造成與社會隔絕導致衰弱。營養狀態也與三種衰弱負相關,不只是白蛋白,血紅素也是重要指標,營養狀態不良的病人須注意是否有衰弱,若有衰弱應盡速矯正營養不足情形。腎臟病健康識能和三種衰弱皆有顯著相關,政策面積極推動慢性疾病健康照護,經由衛教提升病人慢性病相關知識,增進自我健康照護,有助於對抗衰弱。三種衰弱皆顯著相關於ADL/IADL,及其組成的失能,從勝算比看對失能的衝擊PF大於CF及SF。當資源有限時,可考量針對個人衝擊性較大的衰弱面向介入。衰弱也造成無論門診、急診及住院的次數增加的趨勢,造成較高的醫療耗用。面對人口老化,醫療照護資源有限,控制衰弱以減少醫療耗用,應也是對人口老化所帶來醫療照護的衝擊的重要應對之道。 研究結論:CKD是台灣前十大DALY,所造成的DALY並高出世界均值,對臺灣老年人的失能是一大風險。若一路進展到透析治療,更造成社會全體及個人的重大財務及照護負擔。對臺灣而言,減少CKD造成的DALY十分重大,積極介入衰弱以防止失能是關鍵。應針對CKD族群進行全面性衰弱評估,包括PF、CF及SF,並針對各自不足提供客製化的介入策略。運動及營養是傳統有效策略,仍應持續進行;共病的控制也有助於減少衰弱,慢性腎臟病照護也要持續推廣;獨居及貧窮等環境因子應更加關注,適時的社會資源挹注與支持非常重要;深化腎臟病衛教以提升病人腎臟病相關健康識能,也能對抗衰弱發生。納入更多其他醫事專業人員,更全面涵蓋老年腎臟病人照護需求,協助對抗衰弱,減少失能發生,應可有效降低CKD失能對台灣的危害。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Objectives: Taiwan entered the aged society in 2018. Disability, making elders dependent, was one of the most concerned health and care issues. In 2016, among the leading 10 causes of disability-adjusted life years (DALY) in Taiwan, diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) were the fewer two with higher local DALY than the global average. Since most DM was complicated with nephropathy lately and CKD was the final common pathway for DM and CKD, the reduction of CKD-related disability is relevant for Taiwan. Frailty, the preceding stage of disability and potentially reversible, was the important target. Frailty was raised in 2001 and the physical aspect was assessed initially. The concept of frailty kept evolving and more comprehensive approaches, including psychological and social aspect, were suggested. The frailty in psychological aspect was assessed mainly in cognitive function, so cognitive frailty (CF), indicated by mild cognitive impairment, was used as the representative. Social frailty (SF) was defined as the lack of resources to fulfill the social needs oneself. About the relationship between CKD and frailty, physical frailty (PF) had been found to be negatively associated with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), but the relationships between eGFR and CF or SF were not clear. The aim of our study is to find the features of the 3 frailties in Taiwan’s elder CKD/HD/PD population and explore how each frailty was associated with personal risk factors and outcome indicators. More modifiable risk factors and the different impact to the outcome of the 3 frailties were explored to help the policy do the best reaction to the threats of CKD related DALY. Methods: This study was a prospective, multi-center survey research. PF was measured by SOF score. CF was measured by MoCA. SF was measured by Makizako’s score. Disability was evaluated by the combination of ADL and IADL. General health literacy was composed by basic, communicative and criticizing components. Kidney health literacy was assessed by basic kidney knowledge, prevention of CKD, kidney health promotion, CKD diet and CKD related pharmacy. The personal basic data and the lab data were also collected. The “comprehensive frailty model” hypothesis, including PF, CF and SF, was raised to evaluate the individual frailty completely. The relationship between 3 frailties and the risk factors were explored first. And the relationship between 3 frailties and the outcome indicators were analyzed then. Structured equation modeling was used to testify the fitness of our model. p<0.05 was used as the criteria of significance. Results: Totally 337 CKD, 233 PD, and 154 HD patients were enrolled. In CKD population, for PF, 64.26% was accounted as robust, 26.13% as prefrail, and 9.61% as frail; for CF, 68.46% was accounted as normal and 31.5% as frail; for SF, 45.21% was accounted as robust, 31.14% as prefrail, and 23.65% as frail. The odds ratio of the risk of disability was: PF (14.14), CF (13.38), and SF (9.57) respectively. As for the risk factors, age, exercise, comorbidities, single and CKD health literacy, after adjustment, were related to 3 frailties differently. As for eGFR, PF was negatively associated with eGFR, CF was mildly negatively associated with eGFR, and SF was not associated. 3 frailties were also negatively related to nutritional index. As for outcome indicators, 3 frailties were all related to disability significantly. And they were also related to increased medical use, including outpatient clinics, emergency service and hospitalization. The similar results were shown in HD and PD population. More living alone and poverty, significantly related to SF, were noted in HD/PD population. The “comprehensive frailty model” hypothesis, testified by structural equation model, showed acceptable fitness. eGFR was negatively related to all 3 frailties. 3 frailties were all related to disability. Discussions and Conclusions: The prevalence of PF, CF and SF in CKD population was 9.61%, 31.5% and 23.65% respectively, much higher than 5%, 18% and 12% in general population. Traditional frailty evaluation mainly on physical aspect underestimated the real frailty status by at least 30%. Exercise helped decrease PF, and even improved SF and CF. Wider exercise concept should be adopted. Nutrition was also negatively associated with 3 frailties. The traditional strategies to frailty, including exercise and nutrition, were effective and should be maintained. Comorbidities increased the risk of frailty and good control helped confine frailty. Besides, kidney health literacy helped resist 3 frailties. The ongoing CKD care and health promotion program, helping CKD control and raise the patients’ kidney health literacy, should be continued and expanded further. More medical professionals should be included. Poor environmental factors, like living alone or poverty, increasing the risk of SF, especially in HD/PD, should be paid much more attention. Timely and sufficient social support was important. All 3 frailties were associated with increased disability and medical use. The impact of each frailty to disability appeared PF > CF ≈ SF. Increased medical use brought more medical consumption. Control of frailties helps save the medical and care expenses. It is urgent meanwhile when Taiwan’s society is getting old rapidly. CKD was top 10 causes of DALY in Taiwan. CKD brought a big threatening to the elders’ health. If CKD progressed into ESRD, the dialysis therapy consumed more personal and societal financial burden. It’s huge for Taiwan to control CKD related DALY. Comprehensive frailty evaluation and aggressive intervention were critical to lower the burden of CKD related DALY in Taiwan. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-07T17:51:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-0308202001035800.pdf: 6460379 bytes, checksum: 8c8e1ddb0322ed3013eb32f57507d626 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書………………………………………………………………………i 誌謝 …………………………………………………………………………………… ii 中文摘要 ………………………………………………………………………………iii Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………vi 目錄 ……………………………………………………………………………………ix 圖目錄 ……………………………………………………………………………… xiii 表目錄…………………………………………………………………………………xiv 第一章 緒論…………………………………………………………………………… 1 第一節 研究背景與動機…………………………………………………………… 1 第二節 研究目的與重要性………………………………………………………… 8 第三節 重要名詞釋義 …………………………………………………………… 10 第二章 文獻探討 …………………………………………………………………… 12 第一節 從老年症候群到衰弱 …………………………………………………… 12 2.1.1 衰弱概念的建立與操作型定義 ……………………………………………12 2.1.2 衰弱的進程模型及致病機轉 ………………………………………………13 第二節 衰弱的測量 ……………………………………………………………… 15 2.2.1 簡化調整的CHS衰弱指標…………………………………………………15 2.2.2 以外在行為表徵來測量衰弱的其他方法………………………………… 16 2.2.3 以計算功能喪失比率來評估衰弱的方法………………………………… 18 2.2.4 選擇合適的衰弱測量工具………………………………………………… 20 第三節 衰弱的介入 ……………………………………………………………… 21 第四節 肌少症與身體性衰弱 …………………………………………………… 22 第五節 衰弱概念的進展 ………………………………………………………… 23 2.5.1 失能是衰弱的下一步………………………………………………………23 2.5.2 身體性衰弱…………………………………………………………………23 2.5.3 認知性衰弱…………………………………………………………………24 2.5.4 社會性衰弱…………………………………………………………………26 2.5.5 衰弱在臺灣研究的情形……………………………………………………28 第六節 衰弱在CKD及透析次族群的情形……………………………………… 29 第七節 小結 ……………………………………………………………………… 32 第三章 研究方法 …………………………………………………………………… 34 第一節 研究設計與架構 ………………………………………………………… 34 3.1.1 研究設計 ………………………………………………………………… 34 3.1.2 研究架構一 ……………………………………………………………… 34 3.1.2 研究架構二 ……………………………………………………………… 35 第二節 研究對象 ………………………………………………………………… 36 3.2.1 抽樣方法 ………………………………………………………………… 36 3.2.2 研究對象 ………………………………………………………………… 36 第三節 研究工具與資料收集 …………………………………………………… 37 3.3.1 衰弱研究工具與測量 …………………………………………………… 37 3.3.2 失能研究工具與測量 …………………………………………………… 37 3.3.3 健康識能研究工具與測量 ……………………………………………… 38 3.3.4 基本資料收集與病歷查閱 ……………………………………………… 38 第四節 研究變項定義 …………………………………………………………… 39 第五節 統計分析………………………………………………………………… 40 第六節 預期貢獻與研究限制 …………………………………………………… 42 3.3.1 預期貢獻……………………………………………………………………42 3.3.2 研究限制……………………………………………………………………43 第四章 研究結果 …………………………………………………………………… 44 第一節 腎臟病人的資料分析 …………………………………………………… 44 4.1.1 腎臟病人的基本資料………………………………………………………44 4.1.2 腎臟病人的衰弱比較………………………………………………………46 第二節 慢性腎臟病族群的衰弱情形 …………………………………………… 47 4.2.1 慢性腎臟病人的三種衰弱情形……………………………………………47 4.2.2 慢性腎臟病人三種衰弱和其危險因子分析………………………………48 4.2.3 慢性腎臟病人三種衰弱和檢驗數據分析…………………………………51 4.2.4 慢性腎臟病人三種衰弱的羅吉斯迴歸分析模型…………………………53 4.2.5 慢性腎臟病人三種衰弱和預後指標分析…………………………………54 第三節 腹膜透析族群的衰弱情形 ……………………………………………… 55 4.3.1 腹膜透析病人三種衰弱和其危險因子分析………………………………55 4.3.2 腹膜透析病人三種衰弱和檢驗數據分析…………………………………58 4.3.3 腹膜透析病人三種衰弱和預後指標分析…………………………………60 第四節 血液透析族群的衰弱情形 ……………………………………………… 61 4.4.1 血液透析病人三種衰弱和其危險因子分析………………………………61 4.4.2 血液透析病人三種衰弱和檢驗數據分析…………………………………64 4.4.3 血液透析病人三種衰弱和預後指標分析…………………………………66 第五節 腎臟病族群全面性衰弱架構模型評估 ………………………………… 67 4.5.1 腎臟病族群全面性衰弱架構模型驗證性因數分析………………………67 4.5.2 腎臟病族群全面性衰弱架構模型結構方程式分析………………………69 第五章 討論 ………………………………………………………………………… 72 第一節 腎臟病會增加三種衰弱發生 …………………………………………… 72 5.1.1 慢性腎臟病族群較一般族群有更多衰弱…………………………………72 5.1.2 透析族群衰弱更為增加,但適量透析或可改善衰弱……………………72 5.1.3 傳統身體性衰弱評估低估衰弱,恐導致失能增加………………………74 第二節 慢性腎臟病族群的身體性、認知性及社會性衰弱………………………75 5.2.1 慢性腎臟病衰弱相關危險因子可提供政策介入參考……………………75 5.2.2 慢性腎臟病衰弱和腎臟相關檢驗關係解析………………………………79 5.2.3 慢性腎臟病衰弱預測失能並增加醫療耗用………………………………80 5.2.4 全面性衰弱架構模型可成功應用於慢性腎臟病族群……………………81 第三節 腹膜透析族群的身體性、認知性及社會性衰弱…………………………82 5.3.1 腹膜透析衰弱相關危險因子可提供政策介入參考………………………82 5.3.2 腹膜透析衰弱和腎臟相關檢驗關係解析…………………………………84 5.3.3 腹膜透析衰弱預測失能並增加醫療耗用,社會性衰弱須留意…………85 第四節 血液透析族群的身體性、認知性及社會性衰弱…………………………86 5.4.1 血液透析衰弱相關危險因子可提供政策介入參考………………………86 5.4.2 血液透析衰弱和腎臟相關檢驗關係解析…………………………………87 5.4.3 血液透析衰弱預測失能並增加醫療耗用…………………………………88 第六章 結論與建議 ………………………………………………………………… 89 第一節 結論與建議 ……………………………………………………………… 89 第二節 未來建議研究方向 ……………………………………………………… 92 參考文獻……………………………………………………………………………… 94 附錄……………………………………………………………………………………107 1. 腎臟病衰弱研究計畫受試者同意書 2. 腎臟病衰弱研究計畫問卷 3. 衛福部臺北醫院人體試驗核准函 4. 國立臺灣大學附設醫院人體試驗核准函(包含北護分院) 5. 國防醫學院三軍總醫院人體試驗核准函 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 闡述臺灣慢性腎臟病及透析族群身體性、認知性及社會性衰弱之特徵與相關,以及三種衰弱與其危險因子及預後指標之關連情形 | zh_TW |
dc.title | To elucidate the relationship among physical frailty, cognitive frailty, and social frailty and their associations with the risk factors and outcome indicators in Taiwan’s CKD and ESRD population | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 108-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林惠如(Hung-Ru Lin),洪冠予(Kuan-Yu Hung),曹昭懿(Jau-Yih Tsauo),陳雅美(Ya-Mei Chen) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 慢性腎臟病,身體性衰弱,認知性衰弱,社會性衰弱,失能,健康識能, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | chronic kidney disease,physical frailty,cognitive frailty,social frailty,disability,health literacy, | en |
dc.relation.page | 144 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202002240 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2020-08-07 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 健康政策與管理研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 健康政策與管理研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-0308202001035800.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 6.31 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。