Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Mar 30;20(1):124.
doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01508-9.

AMPI-AB validity and reliability: a multidimensional tool in resource-limited primary care settings

Affiliations

AMPI-AB validity and reliability: a multidimensional tool in resource-limited primary care settings

Marcos Daniel Saraiva et al. BMC Geriatr. .

Abstract

Background: The early identification of individuals at high risk for adverse outcomes by a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) in resource-limited primary care settings enables tailored treatments, however, the evidence concerning its benefits are still controversial. The main objective of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the "Multidimensional Assessment of Older People in Primary Care (AMPI-AB)", a CGA for primary care in resource-limited settings.

Methods: Longitudinal study, with median follow-up time of 16 months. Older adults from a public primary care unit in São Paulo, Brazil, were consecutively admitted. Reliability was tested in a sample from a public geriatric outpatient clinic. Participants were classified by the AMPI-AB score as requiring a low, intermediate or high complexity of care. The Physical Frailty Phenotype was used to explore the AMPI-AB's concurrent validity. Predictive validity was assessed with mortality, worsening of the functional status, hospitalizations, emergency room (ER) visits and falls. The area under the ROC curve and logistic regression were calculated for binary outcomes, and a Cox proportional hazards model was used for survival analysis.

Results: Older adults (n = 317) with a median age of 80 (74-86) years, 67% female, were consecutively admitted. At the follow-up, 7.1% of participants had died, and increased dependency on basic and instrumental activities of daily living was detected in 8.9 and 41.1% of the participants, respectively. The AMPI-AB score was accurate in detecting frailty (area under the ROC curve = 0.851), predicted mortality (HR = 1.25, 95%CI = 1.13-1.39) and increased dependency on basic (OR = 1.26, 95%CI = 1.10-1.46) and instrumental (OR = 1.22, 95%CI = 1.12-1.34) activities of daily living, hospitalizations (OR = 2.05, 95%CI = 1.04-1.26), ER visits (OR = 1.20, 95%CI = 1.10-1.31) and falls (OR = 1.10, 95%CI = 1.01-1.20), all models adjusted for sex and years of schooling. Reliability was tested in a sample of 52 older adults with a median age of 72 (85-64) years, 63.5% female. The AMPI-AB also had good interrater (ICC = 0.87, 95%CI = 0.78-0.92), test-retest (ICC = 0.86, 95%CI = 0.76-0.93) and proxy reliability (ICC = 0.84, 95%CI = 0.67-0.93). The Cronbach's alpha was 0.69, and the mean AMPI-AB administration time was 05:44 ± 02:42 min.

Conclusion: The AMPI-AB is a valid and reliable tool for managing older adults in resource-limited primary care settings.

Keywords: Comprehensive geriatric assessment; Primary care; Screening tool; Validation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Area under the ROC curve for the Physical Frailty Phenotype diagnoses according to AMPI-AB score. The cutoff point of 11, initially proposed by consensus of specialists by the Secretariat of Municipal Health of São Paulo to classify a high complexity of care, had 48.6% sensitivity and 92.2% specificity. The cutoff point of 8, calculated by the Youden Index, had 85.7% sensitivity and 68.3% specificity
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kaplan-Meier survival rate curve according to the complexity of care (low/intermediate versus high complexity of care) as classified by the AMPI-AB. The log-rank test revealed a p value < 0.001

References

    1. Rubenstein LZ, Stuck AE, Siu AL, Wieland D. Impacts of geriatric evaluation and management programs on defined outcomes: overview of the evidence. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39(9 Pt 2):8S–16S. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb05927.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Solomon DH. Geriatric assessment: methods for clinical decision making. JAMA. 1988;259(16):2450–2452. doi: 10.1001/jama.1988.03720160070033. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pilotto A, Cella A, Pilotto A, et al. Three Decades of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment: Evidence Coming From Different Healthcare Settings and Specific Clinical Conditions. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(2):192.e1–192.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2016.11.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Garrard JW, Cox NJ, Dodds RM, Roberts HC, Sayer AA. Comprehensive geriatric assessment in primary care: a systematic review. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2019. 10.1007/s40520-019-01183-w. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Counsell SR, Callahan CM, Tu W, Stump TE, Arling GW. Cost analysis of the geriatric resources for assessment and Care of Elders care management intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(8):1420–1426. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02383.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Substances