Influence of Frailty Syndrome on Kinesiophobia According to the Gender of Patients after Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Settings
2.2. Study Participants and Selection
2.3. Stages of the Study
2.4. Ethical Considerations
2.5. Research Instruments
- -
- “1” meant “I completely disagree”, and therefore indicated a complete lack of kinesiophobia,
- -
- “2” meant “I partially disagree”, and thus indicated a lack of kinesiophobia rather than its presence,
- -
- “3” meant “I don’t know, I don’t have an opinion”, and so it was indicative of an intermediate state: neither of the presence of kinesiophobia nor of its absence,
- -
- “4” meant “I agree,” and thus testified to the presence of kinesiophobia rather than the absence thereof,
- -
- “5” meant “I completely agree” and therefore showed a strong kinesiophobia [5].
2.6. Statistical Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gabryś, T.; Bajorek, A. The Frailty Syndrome—A major health problem of the elderly people. Part I. Polish Gerontol. 2015, 1, 29–33. [Google Scholar]
- Życzkowska, J.; Grądalski, T. Frailty—An overview for oncologists. Oncol. Clin. Pract. 2010, 6, 79–84. [Google Scholar]
- Sacha, M.; Sacha, J. Frailty syndrome—Uni- and multidimensional approach. Geriatrics 2017, 11, 290–293. [Google Scholar]
- Sobczyńska, M.; Główczyńska, R.; Opolski, G. Increasing the frequency of complications by the frailty syndrome in patients undergoing invasive cardiology and cardiac surgery. Folia Cardiol. 2017, 12, 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knapik, A.; Saulicz, E.; Gnat, R. Kinesiophobia—Introducing a New Diagnostic Tool. J. Hum. Kinet. 2011, 28, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Knapik, A.; Saulicz, E.; Kuszewski, M.; Myśliwiec, A.; Rottermund, J.; Plinta, R. Gender and level of kinesiophobia in adult population of southern Poland. Med. Rev. Univ. Rzesz. Natl. Inst. Wars. 2012, 3, 277–287. [Google Scholar]
- Piejko, L.; Nawrat-Szołtysik, A. Treatment options for the frailty syndrome in the elderly. Geriatrics 2017, 21, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, M.; Alexander, K.; Roger, V.L.; Charanjit, S.; Rihal, C.S.; Whitson, H.E.; Lerman, A. Frailty and Its Potential Relevance to Cardiovascular. Care Mayo Clin. Proc. 2008, 83, 1146–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gobbens, R.; van Assen, M.; Luijkx, K.; Wijnen-Sponselee, M.T.; Schols, J.M.G.A. The Tilburg frailty indicator: Psychometric properties. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2010, 11, 344–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Uchmanowicz, I.; Lisiak, M.; Jankowska-Polańska, B. Research instruments used in the assessment of the frailty syndrome. Polish Gerontol. 2014, 22, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 4 October 2019).
- Dąbek, J.; Knapik, A.; Gallert-Kopyto, W.; Brzęk, A.; Piotrkowicz, J.; Gąsior, Z. Fear of movement (kinesiophobia)—An underestimated problem in Polish patients at various stages of coronary artery disease. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2020, 27, 56–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kocjan, J.; Knapik, A. Barriers of physical activity (kinesiophobia) in patients subjected to cardiac rehabilitation. Balt. J. Health Phys. Act. 2014, 6, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nascimento, S.A.; Ismael Martins, M.R. Pain, kinesiophobia and quality of life of low back pain patients. Revista Dor São Paulo 2014, 15, 117–120. [Google Scholar]
- Åhlund, K.; Bäck, M.; Sernert, N. Fear-avoidance beliefs and cardiac rehabilitation in patients with first-time myocardial infarction. J. Rehabil. Med. 2013, 45, 1028–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bäck, M.; Cider, A.; Herlitz, J.; Lundberg, M.; Jansson, B. The impact on kinesiophobia (fear of movement) by clinical variables for patients with coronary artery disease. Int. J. Cardiol. 2013, 167, 391–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Silva, N.S.; Abreu, S.S.E.; Suassuna, P.D. Kinesiophobia and associated factors in elderly females with chronic musculoskeletal pain: Pilot study. Rev Dor. São Paulo 2016, 17, 188–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Knapik, A.; Dąbek, J.; Brzęk, A. Kinesiophobia as a Problem in Adherence to Physical Activity Recommendations in Elderly Polish Patients with Coronary Artery Disease. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2019, 13, 2129–2135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Morri, M.; Venturini, E.; Franchini, N.; Ruisi, R.; Culcasi, A.; Ruggiero, A.; Govoni, C.; Benedetti, M.G. Is kinesiophobia a predictor of early functional performance after total hip replacement? A prospective prognostic cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2020, 21, 724. [Google Scholar]
Parameter | Gender | p | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Women (N = 33) | Men (N = 75) | Total (N = 108) | |||
Age [years] | mean ± SD | 71.18 ± 6.01 | 69.56 ± 6.49 | 70.06 ± 1.36 | p = 0.18 |
median | 72 | 68 | 69.5 | ||
quartiles | 67–76 | 64–74.5 | 65–75.25 | ||
Height [cm] | mean ± SD | 159.67 ± 6.82 | 172.16 ± 5.86 | 168.34 ± 8.43 | p < 0.001 |
median | 160 | 172 | 169.5 | ||
quartiles | 154–164 | 168–176 | 164–175.25 | ||
Body mass [kg] | mean ± SD | 71.24 ± 10.91 | 81.4 ± 13.05 | 78.3 ± 13.25 | p < 0.001 |
median | 70 | 80 | 77.5 | ||
quartiles | 65–80 | 71.5–90 | 68–87 | ||
Marital status | Married/living with partner | 18 (54.55%) | 67 (89.33%) | 85 (78.70%) | p < 0.001 |
Unmarried | 1 (3.03%) | 1 (1.33%) | 2 (1.85%) | ||
Separated/divorced | 0 (0.00%) | 3 (4.00%) | 3 (2.78%) | ||
Widow/widower | 14 (42.42%) | 4 (5.33%) | 18 (16.67%) | ||
Education | No or basic | 2 (6.06%) | 4 (5.33%) | 6 (5.56%) | p = 0.737 |
Secondary | 21 (63.64%) | 43 (57.33%) | 64 (59.26%) | ||
Higher vocational or higher | 10 (30.30%) | 28 (37.33%) | 38 (35.19%) | ||
Monthly net income in household | 901–1200 PLN | 0 (0.00%) | 2 (2.67%) | 2 (1.85%) | p = 0.375 |
1201–1500 PLN | 0 (0.00%) | 1 (1.33%) | 1 (0.93%) | ||
1501–1800 PLN | 7 (21.21%) | 7 (9.33%) | 14 (12.96%) | ||
1801–2100 PLN | 14 (42.42%) | 40 (53.33%) | 54 (50.00%) | ||
2101 PLN or more | 12 (36.36%) | 25 (33.33%) | 37 (34.26%) | ||
NYHA class | I | 14 (42.42%) | 47 (62.67%) | 61 (56.48%) | p = 0.117 |
II | 16 (48.48%) | 24 (32.00%) | 40 (37.04%) | ||
III | 3 (9.09%) | 4 (5.33%) | 7 (6.48%) |
TFI | Group | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Women (N = 33) | Men (N = 75) | |||
Overall TFI | mean ± SD | 2.39 ± 1.73 | 1.97 ± 1.79 | p = 0.183 |
median | 2 | 2 | ||
quartiles | 1–5 | 1–2.5 | ||
Physical components | mean ± SD | 1.42 ± 1.23 | 1.33 ± 1.33 | p = 0.609 |
median | 1 | 1 | ||
quartiles | 1–2 | 0–2 | ||
Psychological components | mean ± SD | 0.39 ± 0.56 | 0.37 ± 0.59 | p = 0.737 |
median | 0 | 0 | ||
quartiles | 0–1 | 0–1 | ||
Social components | mean ± SD | 0.58 ± 0.71 | 0.27 ± 0.53 | p = 0.009 |
median | 0 | 0 | ||
quartiles | 0–1 | 0–0 |
The Scale of Kinesiophobia | Group | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Women (N = 33) | Men (N = 75) | |||
Biological domain | mean ± SD | 1.86 ± 0.99 | 1.97 ± 1.04 | p = 0.549 |
median | 1.36 | 1.64 | ||
quartiles | 1.18–2.55 | 1.14–2.5 | ||
Psychological domain | mean ± SD | 1.84 ± 0.9 | 1.51 ± 0.77 | p = 0.006 |
median | 1.44 | 1.22 | ||
quartiles | 1.22–2.33 | 1–1.72 | ||
Morphological parameters | mean ± SD | 1.79 ± 1.24 | 2.05 ± 1.44 | p = 0.829 |
median | 1.5 | 1 | ||
quartiles | 1–2 | 1–3 | ||
Individual demand for stimulation | mean ± SD | 1.86 ± 1.13 | 2.01 ± 1.25 | p = 0.671 |
median | 1.67 | 1.33 | ||
quartiles | 1–2 | 1–2.67 | ||
Level of energy resources | mean ± SD | 1.89 ± 1.11 | 1.98 ± 1.2 | p = 0.608 |
median | 1.25 | 1.25 | ||
quartiles | 1–3 | 1–2.75 | ||
The power of biological drives | mean ± SD | 1.85 ± 1.19 | 1.83 ± 1.2 | p = 0.752 |
median | 1 | 1 | ||
quartiles | 1–3 | 1–2.75 | ||
Level of self-acceptance | mean ± SD | 1.8 ± 1.29 | 1.62 ± 1.05 | p = 0.563 |
median | 1 | 1 | ||
quartiles | 1–2 | 1–2 | ||
Self-assessment of motor skills | mean ± SD | 1.86 ± 1.01 | 1.52 ± 0.85 | p = 0.042 |
median | 1.33 | 1 | ||
quartiles | 1–2.33 | 1–1.67 | ||
Body care | mean ± SD | 1.85 ± 1.02 | 1.45 ± 0.8 | p = 0.011 |
median | 1.25 | 1 | ||
quartiles | 1–2.25 | 1–1.38 |
Kinesioph- obia | Biological Domain | Psychological Domain | Morphological Parameters | Individual Demand for Stimulation | Level of Energy Resources | Power of Biological Drives | Level of Self-Acceptance | Self-Assessment of Motor Skills | Body Care | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TFI | ||||||||||
Overall TFI | r = −0.081, p = 0.407 | r = −0.051, p = 0.599 | r = −0.017, p = 0.865 | r = 0.028, p = 0.772 | r = −0.084, p = 0.387 | r = −0.041, p = 0.671 | r = −0.08, p = 0.412 | r = −0.053, p = 0.586 | r = −0.078, p = 0.423 | |
Physical components | r = −0.079, p = 0.419 | r = −0.086, p = 0.378 | r = −0.041, p = 0.671 | r = 0.031, p = 0.749 | r = −0.07, p = 0.473 | r = −0.034, p = 0.724 | r = −0.123, p = 0.206 | r = −0.064, p = 0.51 | r = −0.09, p = 0.352 | |
Psychological components | r = 0.153, p = 0.114 | r = 0.005, p = 0.962 | r = 0.166, p = 0.086 | r = 0.143, p = 0.141 | r = 0.111, p = 0.255 | r = 0.167, p = 0.084 | r = 0.081, p = 0.406 | r = −0.111, p = 0.254 | r = −0.032, p = 0.746 | |
Social components | r = −0.138, p = 0.156 | r = 0.091, p = 0.349 | r = −0.007, p = 0.943 | r = −0.095, p = 0.328 | r = −0.121, p = 0.211 | r = −0.12, p = 0.216 | r = 0.037, p = 0.702 | r = 0.14, p = 0.148 | r = 0.033, p = 0.734 |
Kinesioph- obia | Biological Domain | Psychological Domain | Morphological Parameters | Individual Demand for Stimulation | Level of Energy Resources | Power of Biological Drives | Level of Self-Acceptance | Self-Assessment of Motor Skills | Body Care | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TFI | ||||||||||
Overall TFI | r = −0.299, p = 0.091 | r = −0.007, p = 0.969 | r = 0.07, p = 0.7 | r = −0.171, p = 0.341 | r = −0.389, p = 0.025 | r = −0.248, p = 0.164 | r = −0.079, p = 0.662 | r = −0.148, p = 0.411 | r = −0.027, p = 0.879 | |
Physical components | r = −0.214, p = 0.232 | r = −0.072, p = 0.692 | r = 0.177, p = 0.324 | r = −0.138, p = 0.442 | r = −0.388, p = 0.026 | r = −0.167, p = 0.353 | r = −0.124, p = 0.49 | r = −0.179, p = 0.32 | r = −0.044, p = 0.81 | |
Psychological components | r = 0.022, p = 0.901 | r = 0.129, p = 0.476 | r = 0.111, p = 0.538 | r = 0.011, p = 0.952 | r = 0.005, p = 0.98 | r = 0.059, p = 0.745 | r = 0.049, p = 0.788 | r = −0.12, p = 0.506 | r = 0.077, p = 0.669 | |
Social components | r = −0.312, p = 0.078 | r = −0.08, p = 0.657 | r = 0.116, p = 0.519 | r = −0.227, p = 0.204 | r = −0.283, p = 0.11 | r = −0.326, p = 0.064 | r = −0.008, p = 0.964 | r = 0.002, p = 0.99 | r = −0.117, p = 0.516 |
Kinesioph- obia | Biological Domain | Psychological Domain | Morphological Parameters | Individual Demand for Stimulation | Level of Energy Resources | Power of Biological Drives | Level of Self-Acceptance | Self-Assessment of Motor Skills | Body Care | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TFI | ||||||||||
Overall TFI | r = 0.015, p = 0.897 | r = −0.122, p = 0.298 | r = −0.043, p = 0.716 | r = 0.114, p = 0.329 | r = 0.044, p = 0.71 | r = 0.033, p = 0.779 | r = −0.093, p = 0.427 | r = −0.062, p = 0.599 | r = −0.146, p = 0.212 | |
Physical components | r = −0.009, p = 0.942 | r = −0.114, p = 0.33 | r = −0.103, p = 0.378 | r = 0.107, p = 0.361 | r = 0.055, p = 0.637 | r = 0.015, p = 0.899 | r = −0.123, p = 0.292 | r = −0.036, p = 0.758 | r = −0.117, p = 0.318 | |
Psychological components | r = 0.212, p = 0.068 | r = −0.056, p = 0.631 | r = 0.188, p = 0.106 | r = 0.21, p = 0.071 | r = 0.165, p = 0.157 | r = 0.213, p = 0.067 | r = 0.091, p = 0.435 | r = −0.127, p = 0.278 | r = −0.096, p = 0.412 | |
Social components | r = −0.04, p = 0.735 | r = 0.092, p = 0.433 | r = −0.05, p = 0.671 | r = −0.018, p = 0.875 | r = −0.026, p = 0.823 | r = −0.04, p = 0.735 | r = 0.045, p = 0.704 | r = 0.157, p = 0.178 | r = 0.036, p = 0.76 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kluszczyńska, M.; Młynarska, A.; Mikulakova, W. Influence of Frailty Syndrome on Kinesiophobia According to the Gender of Patients after Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery. Healthcare 2021, 9, 730. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9060730
Kluszczyńska M, Młynarska A, Mikulakova W. Influence of Frailty Syndrome on Kinesiophobia According to the Gender of Patients after Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery. Healthcare. 2021; 9(6):730. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9060730
Chicago/Turabian StyleKluszczyńska, Martyna, Agnieszka Młynarska, and Wioletta Mikulakova. 2021. "Influence of Frailty Syndrome on Kinesiophobia According to the Gender of Patients after Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery" Healthcare 9, no. 6: 730. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9060730