Supplementary Material for: Comparing cost and acceptability two instruments to measure instrumental activities of daily living in older people in Chile

Introduction: Population aging and increasing in long-term care needs call for designing and implementing better tools for assessing functional ability. In Chile, the Lawton & Brody (L&B) scale is used for identifying limitations with instrumental activities. This study compares the costs and acceptability of the L&B with a new instrument to measure IADL: the Instrument for the Assessment of Functionality Stages (IDEEF).
Methods: Phone surveys were carried out to apply the L&B and the IDEEF to a sample of 200 older people (60+) participating in public programs for older people in the Metropolitan Region, Chile. Besides the items assessed by each scale, the survey captured completion times and included a short questionnaire on acceptability, data that allowed comparisons between instruments.
Results: On average, the L&B takes around 4 minutes to be applied; the completion times for the IDEEF are four times longer. However, the IDEEF performs better in terms of acceptability and has neither gender bias nor dependency bias.
Conclusion: Both instruments have pros and cons but the IDEEF appears as a feasible alternative to the L&B to improve the assessment of IADL in the country.

引言：人口老龄化与长期照护需求的持续攀升，亟需研发并推广更优质的功能能力评估工具。在智利，洛顿与布罗迪（Lawton & Brody, L&B）量表被用于识别工具性日常生活活动障碍。本研究对比了L&B量表与一款新型工具性日常生活活动（Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, IADL）评估工具——功能阶段评估量表（Instrument for the Assessment of Functionality Stages, IDEEF）的施测成本与接受度。
方法：本研究采用电话调查方式，对智利首都大区参与老年人公共服务项目的200名60岁及以上老年人群体，分别施测L&B量表与IDEEF。除采集各量表的评估条目数据外，调查还记录了两款工具的施测耗时，并设置了接受度相关的简短问卷，以此获取可用于两款工具对比的完整数据集。
结果：平均而言，L&B量表的施测时长约为4分钟，而IDEEF的施测耗时是其4倍。但IDEEF在接受度表现上更优，且不存在性别偏倚与依赖偏倚。
结论：两款工具各有优劣，但IDEEF可作为L&B量表的可行替代方案，用于优化智利国内的IADL评估工作。