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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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
APA StyleKluszczyńska, M., Młynarska, A., & Mikulakova, W. (2021). Influence of Frailty Syndrome on Kinesiophobia According to the Gender of Patients after Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery. Healthcare, 9(6), 730. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9060730