Reliability and Usability of a Weighted Version of the Functional Comorbidity Index
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Purpose: To investigate the reliability of a weighted version of the Functional Comorbidity Index (w-FCI) compared with that of the original Functional Comorbidity Index (FCI) and to test its usability.
Patients And Methods: Sixteen physicians collected data from 102 residents who lived in 16 different nursing homes in the Netherlands. A multicenter, prospective observational study was carried out in combination with a qualitative part using the three-step test interview, in which participants completed the w-FCI while thinking aloud and being observed, and were then interviewed afterward. To analyze inter-rater reliability, a subset of 41 residents participated. The qualitative part of the study was completed by eleven elderly care physicians and one advanced nurse practitioner.
Measurements: The w-FCI was composed of the original FCI supplemented with a severity rating per comorbidity, ranging from 0 (disease absent) to 3 (severe impact on daily function). The w-FCI was filled out at baseline by 16 physicians and again 2 months later to establish intra-rater reliability (intraclass correlations; ICCs). For inter-rater reliability, four pairs of raters completed the w-FCI independently from each other.
Results: The ICCs were 0.90 (FCI) and 0.94 (w-FCI) for intra-rater reliability, and 0.61 (FCI) and 0.55 (w-FCI) for inter-rater reliability. Regarding usability of the w-FCI, five meaningful themes emerged from the qualitative data: 1) sources of information; 2) deciding on the presence or absence of disease; 3) severity of comorbidities; 4) usefulness; and 5) content.
Conclusion: The intra-rater reliability of the FCI and the w-FCI was excellent, whereas the inter-rater reliability was moderate for both indices. Based on the present results, a modified w-FCI is proposed that is acceptable and feasible for use in older patients and requires further investigation to study its (predictive) validity.
Brennan T, Lewis L, Gordon S, Prichard I BMC Public Health. 2025; 25(1):956.
PMID: 40069744 PMC: 11895312. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-025-21957-4.
Naidoo S, Naidoo N PLoS One. 2025; 20(2):e0319188.
PMID: 39946381 PMC: 11825011. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0319188.
Fisher S, Villasante-Tezanos A, Allen L, Pappadis M, Kilic G Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2024; 10(1):1.
PMID: 38178267 PMC: 10765875. DOI: 10.1186/s40814-023-01440-w.
Medina-Mirapeix F, Bernabeu-Mora R, Gacto-Sanchez M, Montilla-Herrador J, Escolar-Reina P, Sanchez-Martinez M Chron Respir Dis. 2022; 19:14799731221119810.
PMID: 36071021 PMC: 9459488. DOI: 10.1177/14799731221119810.
State of the Art Physiotherapist-Led Approaches to Safe Aging in Place.
Wilson C, Arena S, Boright L Arch Physiother. 2022; 12(1):17.
PMID: 35909181 PMC: 9341110. DOI: 10.1186/s40945-022-00142-5.