Verpleegkunde Nummer 3 , pp. 22-30
sep 2021, jaargang 36
Verpleegkunde Nr. 3 , pp. 22-30
sep 2021, jr. 36
Onderzoeksartikel

De validiteit van de Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI): een overzichtsstudie

DOEL
De Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) is een instrument dat wordt gebruikt voor de beoordeling van kwetsbaarheid bij zelfstandig wonende ouderen. Sinds de ontwikkeling van de TFI werd veel onderzoek verricht naar de psychometrische eigenschappen van dit instrument. Deze studie heeft tot doel een overzicht te geven van de belangrijkste bevindingen met betrekking tot de validiteit van de TFI.

METHODE
Op 22 januari 2021 werd een literatuuronderzoek uitgevoerd in de databanken PubMed en CINAHL. Een inclusiecriterium was het gebruik van de volledige TFI-deel B, verwijzend naar de 15 componenten. Er werden geen beperkingen opgelegd naar de taal of het jaar van publicatie.

RESULTATEN
In totaal rapporteerden 24 studies over de validiteit van de TFI. Vele studies toonden aan dat de criterium- en begripsvaliditeit als goed kan worden gekwalificeerd. De samenhang van de TFI met sommige indicatoren van zorggebruik zoals bezoeken aan de huisarts en ziekenhuisopname kan echter als slecht worden aangeduid.

DISCUSSIE en CONCLUSIE
Naast de overwegend goede kwalificatie van de validiteit van de TFI, is dit instrument ook gebruiksvriendelijk voor het beoordelen van kwetsbaarheid bij thuiswonende ouderen. De bevindingen van deze beoordeling kunnen gezondheidszorgprofessionals ondersteunen bij het selecteren van interventies om kwetsbaarheid van ouderen te verminderen en de nadelige uitkomsten ervan, zoals een lagere kwaliteit van leven, te vertragen.

Literatuur

  1. Gobbens RJ, van Assen MA, Luijkx KG, et al. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator: psychometric properties. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2010;11:344-55.
  2. Gobbens RJ, Luijkx KG, Wijnen-Sponselee MT, Schols JM. Toward a conceptual definition of frail community dwelling older people. Nurs Outlook 2010;58:76-86.
  3. World Health Organization. World Report on Ageing and Health. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2015.
  4. Markle-Reid M, Browne G. Conceptualizations of frailty in relation to older adults. J Adv Nurs 2003;44:58-68.
  5. Gilardi F, Capanna A, Ferraro M, et al. Frailty screening and assessment tools: a review of characteristics and use in public health. Ann Ig 2018;30:128-39.
  6. Gobbens RJ, Luijkx KG, Wijnen-Sponselee MT, et al. In search of an integral conceptual definition of frailty: opinions of experts. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2010;11:338-43.
  7. Santiago LM, Luz LL, Mattos IE, et al. Psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Tilburg frailty indicator (TFI). Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2013;57:39-45.
  8. Andreasen J, Sorensen EE, Gobbens RJ, et al. Danish version of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator - Translation, cross-cultural adaption and validity pretest by cognitive interviewing. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2014;59:32-8.
  9. Mulasso A, Roppolo M, Gobbens RJ, et al. The Italian Version of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator: Analysis of Psychometric Properties. Res Aging 2016;38:842-63.
  10. Coelho T, Santos R, Paul C, et al. Portuguese version of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator: Transcultural adaptation and psychometric validation. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2015;15:951-60.
  11. Uchmanowicz I, Jankowska-Polanska B, Loboz-Rudnicka M, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and reliability testing of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator for optimizing care of Polish patients with frailty syndrome. Clin Interv Aging 2014;9:997-1001.
  12. Freitag S, Schmidt S, Gobbens RJ. Tilburg frailty indicator : German translation and psychometric testing. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2016;49:86-93.
  13. Dong L, Liu N, Tian X, et al. Reliability and validity of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) among Chinese community-dwelling older people. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2017;73:21-8.
  14. Vrotsou K, Machon M, Rivas-Ruiz F, et al. Psychometric properties of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator in older Spanish people. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2018;78:203-12.
  15. Topcu Y, Tufan F, Kilic C. Turkish version of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator. Clin Interv Aging 2019;14:615-20.
  16. Pialoux T, Goyard J, Lesourd B. Screening tools for frailty in primary health care: a systematic review. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2012;12:189-97.
  17. Sutton JL, Gould RL, Daley S, et al. Psychometric properties of multicomponent tools designed to assess frailty in older adults: A systematic review. BMC Geriatr 2016;16:55.
  18. Romero-Ortuno R, Walsh CD, Lawlor BA, et al. A frailty instrument for primary care: findings from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). BMC Geriatr 2010;10:57.
  19. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001;56:M146-56.
  20. Saliba D, Elliott M, Rubenstein LZ, et al. The Vulnerable Elders Survey: a tool for identifying vulnerable older people in the community. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001;49:1691-9.
  21. Mitnitski AB, Mogilner AJ, Rockwood K. Accumulation of deficits as a proxy measure of aging. ScientificWorldJournal 2001;1:323-36.
  22. De Witte N, Gobbens R, De Donder L, et al. Validation of the Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Instrument against the Tilburg Frailty Indicator. Eur Geriatr Med 2013;4:248-54.
  23. Kimberlin CL, Winterstein AG. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008;65:2276-84.
  24. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. Second edition ed. New York, NY: John Wiley and sons; 2000.
  25. Strauss ME, Smith GT. Construct validity: advances in theory and methodology. Ann Rev Clin Psychol 2009;5:1-25.
  26. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1959;56:81-105.
  27. Polit DF. Assessing measurement in health: Beyond reliability and validity. Int J Nurs Stud 2015;52:1746-53.
  28. Burns N, Grove SK. The practice of nursing research: conduct, critique & utlization Second ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1993.
  29. Bolarinwa OA. Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Niger Post Med J 2015;22: 195-201.
  30. Souza AC, Alexandre NMC, Guirardello EB. Psychometric properties in instruments evaluation of reliability and validity. Epidemiol Serv Saude 2017;26:649-59.
  31. Metzelthin SF, Daniels R, van Rossum E, et al The psychometric properties of three self-report screening instruments for identifying frail older people in the community. BMC Public Health 2010;10:176.
  32. Daniels R, van Rossum E, Beurskens A, et al. The predictive validity of three self-report screening instruments for identifying frail older people in the community. BMC Public Health 2012;12:69.
  33. Gobbens RJ, Boersma P, Uchmanowicz I, et al. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI): New Evidence for Its Validity. Clin Intervent Aging 2020;15:265-74.
  34. Gobbens RJ, Krans A, van Assen MA. Validation of an integral conceptual model of frailty in older residents of assisted living facilities. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2015;61:400-10.
  35. Gobbens RJ, van Assen MA. The prediction of quality of life by physical, psychological and social components of frailty in community-dwelling older people. Qual Life Res 2014;23:2289-300.
  36. Gobbens RJ, van Assen MA, Luijkx KG, et al. The predictive validity of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator: disability, health care utilization, and quality of life in a population at risk. Gerontologist 2012;52:619-31.
  37. Op Het Veld LPM, Beurskens A, de Vet HCW, et al. The ability of four frailty screening instruments to predict mortality, hospitalization and dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living. Eur J Ageing 2019;16:387-94.
  38. Op Het Veld LPM, van Rossum E, Kempen G, et al. Can the Combined Use of Two Screening Instruments Improve the Predictive Power of Dependency in (Instrumental) Activities of Daily Living, Mortality and Hospitalization in Old Age? J Frailty Aging 2019;8:180-5.
  39. Theou O, Brothers TD, Mitnitski A, et al. Operationalization of frailty using eight commonly used scales and comparison of their ability to predict all-cause mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc 2013;61:1537-51.
  40. Zhang X, Tan SS, Bilajac L, et al. Reliability and Validity of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator in 5 European Countries. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2020;21:772-9.e6.
  41. Gobbens RJJ, van Assen M, Augustijn H, Goumans M, van der Ploeg T. Prediction of Mortality by the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI). J Am Med Dir Assoc 2021;22:607.e1-607.e6.
  42. Andreasen J, Lund H, Aadahl M, et al. Content validation of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator from the perspective of frail elderly. A qualitative explorative study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2015;61:392-9.
  43. Gobbens RJJ, Andreasen J. The prediction of readmission and mortality by the domains and components of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI): A prospective cohort study among acutely admitted older patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2020;89:104077.
  44. Santiago LM, Gobbens RJJ, van Assen M, et al. Predictive validity of the Brazilian version of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator for adverse health outcomes in older adults. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2018;76:114-9.
  45. WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med 1998;28:551-8.
  46. Power M, Quinn K, Schmidt S. Development of the WHOQOL-old module. Qual Life Res 2005;14:2197-214.
  47. Schmidt S, Mühlan H, Power M. The EUROHIS-QOL 8-item index: psychometric results of a cross-cultural field study. Eur J Public Health 2006;16:420-8.
  48. Alqahtani BA, Abdelbasset WK, Alenazi AM. Psychometric analysis of the Arabic (Saudi) Tilburg Frailty Indicator among Saudi community-dwelling older adults. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2020;90:104128.
  49. Gobbens RJ, Uchmanowicz I. Assessing frailty with the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI): An overview of reliability and validity. Clin Interv Aging 2021;16:863-75.
  50. Vellas B, Balardy L, Gillette-Guyonnet S, et al. Looking for frailty in community-dwelling older persons: the Gerontopole Frailty Screening Tool (GFST). J Nutr Health Aging 2013;17:629-31.
  51. Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF, et al. Lower extremity function and subsequent disability: consistency across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed alone compared with the short physical performance battery. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2000;55:M221-31.
  52. Collard RM, Boter H, Schoevers RA, et al. Prevalence of frailty in community-dwelling older persons: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012;60:1487-92.
  53. Kempen GI, Suurmeijer TP. The development of a hierarchical polychotomous ADL-IADL scale for noninstitutionalized elders. Gerontologist 1990;30:497-502.
  54. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, et al. Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 1963;185:914-9.
Onderzoeksartikel

De validiteit van de Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI): een overzichtsstudie

DOEL
De Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) is een instrument dat wordt gebruikt voor de beoordeling van kwetsbaarheid bij zelfstandig wonende ouderen. Sinds de ontwikkeling van de TFI werd veel onderzoek verricht naar de psychometrische eigenschappen van dit instrument. Deze studie heeft tot doel een overzicht te geven van de belangrijkste bevindingen met betrekking tot de validiteit van de TFI.

METHODE
Op 22 januari 2021 werd een literatuuronderzoek uitgevoerd in de databanken PubMed en CINAHL. Een inclusiecriterium was het gebruik van de volledige TFI-deel B, verwijzend naar de 15 componenten. Er werden geen beperkingen opgelegd naar de taal of het jaar van publicatie.

RESULTATEN
In totaal rapporteerden 24 studies over de validiteit van de TFI. Vele studies toonden aan dat de criterium- en begripsvaliditeit als goed kan worden gekwalificeerd. De samenhang van de TFI met sommige indicatoren van zorggebruik zoals bezoeken aan de huisarts en ziekenhuisopname kan echter als slecht worden aangeduid.

DISCUSSIE en CONCLUSIE
Naast de overwegend goede kwalificatie van de validiteit van de TFI, is dit instrument ook gebruiksvriendelijk voor het beoordelen van kwetsbaarheid bij thuiswonende ouderen. De bevindingen van deze beoordeling kunnen gezondheidszorgprofessionals ondersteunen bij het selecteren van interventies om kwetsbaarheid van ouderen te verminderen en de nadelige uitkomsten ervan, zoals een lagere kwaliteit van leven, te vertragen.

Literatuur

  1. Gobbens RJ, van Assen MA, Luijkx KG, et al. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator: psychometric properties. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2010;11:344-55.
  2. Gobbens RJ, Luijkx KG, Wijnen-Sponselee MT, Schols JM. Toward a conceptual definition of frail community dwelling older people. Nurs Outlook 2010;58:76-86.
  3. World Health Organization. World Report on Ageing and Health. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2015.
  4. Markle-Reid M, Browne G. Conceptualizations of frailty in relation to older adults. J Adv Nurs 2003;44:58-68.
  5. Gilardi F, Capanna A, Ferraro M, et al. Frailty screening and assessment tools: a review of characteristics and use in public health. Ann Ig 2018;30:128-39.
  6. Gobbens RJ, Luijkx KG, Wijnen-Sponselee MT, et al. In search of an integral conceptual definition of frailty: opinions of experts. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2010;11:338-43.
  7. Santiago LM, Luz LL, Mattos IE, et al. Psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Tilburg frailty indicator (TFI). Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2013;57:39-45.
  8. Andreasen J, Sorensen EE, Gobbens RJ, et al. Danish version of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator - Translation, cross-cultural adaption and validity pretest by cognitive interviewing. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2014;59:32-8.
  9. Mulasso A, Roppolo M, Gobbens RJ, et al. The Italian Version of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator: Analysis of Psychometric Properties. Res Aging 2016;38:842-63.
  10. Coelho T, Santos R, Paul C, et al. Portuguese version of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator: Transcultural adaptation and psychometric validation. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2015;15:951-60.
  11. Uchmanowicz I, Jankowska-Polanska B, Loboz-Rudnicka M, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and reliability testing of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator for optimizing care of Polish patients with frailty syndrome. Clin Interv Aging 2014;9:997-1001.
  12. Freitag S, Schmidt S, Gobbens RJ. Tilburg frailty indicator : German translation and psychometric testing. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2016;49:86-93.
  13. Dong L, Liu N, Tian X, et al. Reliability and validity of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) among Chinese community-dwelling older people. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2017;73:21-8.
  14. Vrotsou K, Machon M, Rivas-Ruiz F, et al. Psychometric properties of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator in older Spanish people. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2018;78:203-12.
  15. Topcu Y, Tufan F, Kilic C. Turkish version of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator. Clin Interv Aging 2019;14:615-20.
  16. Pialoux T, Goyard J, Lesourd B. Screening tools for frailty in primary health care: a systematic review. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2012;12:189-97.
  17. Sutton JL, Gould RL, Daley S, et al. Psychometric properties of multicomponent tools designed to assess frailty in older adults: A systematic review. BMC Geriatr 2016;16:55.
  18. Romero-Ortuno R, Walsh CD, Lawlor BA, et al. A frailty instrument for primary care: findings from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). BMC Geriatr 2010;10:57.
  19. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001;56:M146-56.
  20. Saliba D, Elliott M, Rubenstein LZ, et al. The Vulnerable Elders Survey: a tool for identifying vulnerable older people in the community. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001;49:1691-9.
  21. Mitnitski AB, Mogilner AJ, Rockwood K. Accumulation of deficits as a proxy measure of aging. ScientificWorldJournal 2001;1:323-36.
  22. De Witte N, Gobbens R, De Donder L, et al. Validation of the Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Instrument against the Tilburg Frailty Indicator. Eur Geriatr Med 2013;4:248-54.
  23. Kimberlin CL, Winterstein AG. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008;65:2276-84.
  24. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. Second edition ed. New York, NY: John Wiley and sons; 2000.
  25. Strauss ME, Smith GT. Construct validity: advances in theory and methodology. Ann Rev Clin Psychol 2009;5:1-25.
  26. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1959;56:81-105.
  27. Polit DF. Assessing measurement in health: Beyond reliability and validity. Int J Nurs Stud 2015;52:1746-53.
  28. Burns N, Grove SK. The practice of nursing research: conduct, critique & utlization Second ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1993.
  29. Bolarinwa OA. Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Niger Post Med J 2015;22: 195-201.
  30. Souza AC, Alexandre NMC, Guirardello EB. Psychometric properties in instruments evaluation of reliability and validity. Epidemiol Serv Saude 2017;26:649-59.
  31. Metzelthin SF, Daniels R, van Rossum E, et al The psychometric properties of three self-report screening instruments for identifying frail older people in the community. BMC Public Health 2010;10:176.
  32. Daniels R, van Rossum E, Beurskens A, et al. The predictive validity of three self-report screening instruments for identifying frail older people in the community. BMC Public Health 2012;12:69.
  33. Gobbens RJ, Boersma P, Uchmanowicz I, et al. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI): New Evidence for Its Validity. Clin Intervent Aging 2020;15:265-74.
  34. Gobbens RJ, Krans A, van Assen MA. Validation of an integral conceptual model of frailty in older residents of assisted living facilities. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2015;61:400-10.
  35. Gobbens RJ, van Assen MA. The prediction of quality of life by physical, psychological and social components of frailty in community-dwelling older people. Qual Life Res 2014;23:2289-300.
  36. Gobbens RJ, van Assen MA, Luijkx KG, et al. The predictive validity of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator: disability, health care utilization, and quality of life in a population at risk. Gerontologist 2012;52:619-31.
  37. Op Het Veld LPM, Beurskens A, de Vet HCW, et al. The ability of four frailty screening instruments to predict mortality, hospitalization and dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living. Eur J Ageing 2019;16:387-94.
  38. Op Het Veld LPM, van Rossum E, Kempen G, et al. Can the Combined Use of Two Screening Instruments Improve the Predictive Power of Dependency in (Instrumental) Activities of Daily Living, Mortality and Hospitalization in Old Age? J Frailty Aging 2019;8:180-5.
  39. Theou O, Brothers TD, Mitnitski A, et al. Operationalization of frailty using eight commonly used scales and comparison of their ability to predict all-cause mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc 2013;61:1537-51.
  40. Zhang X, Tan SS, Bilajac L, et al. Reliability and Validity of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator in 5 European Countries. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2020;21:772-9.e6.
  41. Gobbens RJJ, van Assen M, Augustijn H, Goumans M, van der Ploeg T. Prediction of Mortality by the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI). J Am Med Dir Assoc 2021;22:607.e1-607.e6.
  42. Andreasen J, Lund H, Aadahl M, et al. Content validation of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator from the perspective of frail elderly. A qualitative explorative study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2015;61:392-9.
  43. Gobbens RJJ, Andreasen J. The prediction of readmission and mortality by the domains and components of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI): A prospective cohort study among acutely admitted older patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2020;89:104077.
  44. Santiago LM, Gobbens RJJ, van Assen M, et al. Predictive validity of the Brazilian version of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator for adverse health outcomes in older adults. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2018;76:114-9.
  45. WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med 1998;28:551-8.
  46. Power M, Quinn K, Schmidt S. Development of the WHOQOL-old module. Qual Life Res 2005;14:2197-214.
  47. Schmidt S, Mühlan H, Power M. The EUROHIS-QOL 8-item index: psychometric results of a cross-cultural field study. Eur J Public Health 2006;16:420-8.
  48. Alqahtani BA, Abdelbasset WK, Alenazi AM. Psychometric analysis of the Arabic (Saudi) Tilburg Frailty Indicator among Saudi community-dwelling older adults. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2020;90:104128.
  49. Gobbens RJ, Uchmanowicz I. Assessing frailty with the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI): An overview of reliability and validity. Clin Interv Aging 2021;16:863-75.
  50. Vellas B, Balardy L, Gillette-Guyonnet S, et al. Looking for frailty in community-dwelling older persons: the Gerontopole Frailty Screening Tool (GFST). J Nutr Health Aging 2013;17:629-31.
  51. Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF, et al. Lower extremity function and subsequent disability: consistency across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed alone compared with the short physical performance battery. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2000;55:M221-31.
  52. Collard RM, Boter H, Schoevers RA, et al. Prevalence of frailty in community-dwelling older persons: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012;60:1487-92.
  53. Kempen GI, Suurmeijer TP. The development of a hierarchical polychotomous ADL-IADL scale for noninstitutionalized elders. Gerontologist 1990;30:497-502.
  54. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, et al. Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 1963;185:914-9.
Over dit artikel
Auteurs
Robbert Gobbens, Izabella Uchmanowicz
Over de auteurs

Dr. Robbert Gobbens, lector Gezondheid en Welzijn van kwetsbare ouderen bij Hogeschool Inholland en de Zonnehuisgroep Amstelland, gastprofessor bij de Faculteit Geneeskunde en Gezondheidswetenschappen (vakgroep Family Medicine and Population Health) van de Universiteit Antwerpen.
Prof. dr. Izabella Uchmanowicz, hoogleraar en hoofd van de Faculteit Postgraduate Studies (departement Public Health) en verbonden aan de Medische Universiteit van Wroclaw, Polen.

Correspondentieadres: robbert.gobbens@inholland.nl

Printdatum
17 september 2021
E-pubdatum
20 september 2021
ISSN print
0920-3273
ISSN online
2468-2225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.24078/vpg.2021.9.127845


Over dit artikel
Auteurs
Robbert Gobbens, Izabella Uchmanowicz
Over de auteurs

Dr. Robbert Gobbens, lector Gezondheid en Welzijn van kwetsbare ouderen bij Hogeschool Inholland en de Zonnehuisgroep Amstelland, gastprofessor bij de Faculteit Geneeskunde en Gezondheidswetenschappen (vakgroep Family Medicine and Population Health) van de Universiteit Antwerpen.
Prof. dr. Izabella Uchmanowicz, hoogleraar en hoofd van de Faculteit Postgraduate Studies (departement Public Health) en verbonden aan de Medische Universiteit van Wroclaw, Polen.

Correspondentieadres: robbert.gobbens@inholland.nl

Printdatum
17 september 2021
E-pubdatum
20 september 2021
ISSN print
0920-3273
ISSN online
2468-2225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.24078/vpg.2021.9.127845