A Scoping Review of Community Based Geriatric Health Assessment and Screening Tools used in South Asia Region

There have been many geriatric tools developed to assess health status targeting especially for older adults from developed nations but not context specific. Whereas finger count tools are available for LMICs, especially the South Asia population. CGA, as opposed to medical examination, uses multiple tools to capture a holistic health status of the older adults in line with the more comprehensive WHO definition of health. It includes a harmonized evaluation of the clinical, functional, psychological, environmental and social health status of older population. Although there is no standardized format for carrying out CGA, there is broad consensus on the domains that need to be measured. For the better caring of culturally diverse South Asian older population, we need to develop more culturally competent CGHA tools. So, this review summarised studies that describe validated tools for assessing geriatric health in community settings in South Asia. We followed Arksey and O Malleys five-stage scoping review framework, refined with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, to identify the research questions, identify relevant studies, select studies, chart the data, and collate and summarize the data. Using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a search of 3 databases (PubMed, Embase and PsychInfo was undertaken. After applying eligibility criteria to 607 articles, only 46 studies met the inclusion criteria. 7 studies reported on medical assessment, 4 studies assessed psychological condition,6 studies assessed functional issue,2 studies assessed social wellbeing and 9 studies reported on different domains. None study measured all domains. 24 tools calibrated with Gold standard measure, were validated and reliable by assessed with psychometric properties such as sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and ROC-AUC. Meanwhile, 21 tools were validated exclusively for older adults, whereas there are no validated tools available for CGHA in South Asia. This review will guide us for development of CGHA tools or adaptation of existing tools in our context. As well, it will help practitioners to develop tools to measure comprehensive health of the elderly in their context.

We conducted a systematic search of the following relevant electronic databases: MEDLINE (Via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid) and PsychInfo (via Ovid). As English is the preferred scientific communication language in the region, we searched for articles published in English without any date restrictions. The pilot searches were carried out on variations of the word "Community-based", "elderly", "Health assessment*" "screening", "Tool*", South Asia that appeared in Title/ Abstracts. The detailed of search string was presented in Appendix 2. In addition, relevant papers were identified through reference mining and Google scholar database using the keywords.

Study selection
After an extensive search in databases, all the eligible studies meeting our inclusion were downloaded and then imported to citation manager (Mendeley). Following de-duplication of electronic articles, two independent review authors (SP & TB) screened relevant articles based on Title/Abstract. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved. In case no consensus was reached, a third author (JSK) made the decision. Full texts were retrieved and reviewed for eligibility. We included studies conducted in any of the 7 South Asian countries that evaluated geriatric health assessment tools, or any of the sub-domains or reported its development process or validation. We excluded manuscripts that were in form of Comments, editorial, letters, Conference or congress papers, abstracts and reviews. We have included those institutional geriatric health assessment tools which can be implemented in community setting as well. Full-text review followed the same method as Title/abstract screening with disagreements resolved by consensus or by a 3 rd author. In this study, we have not considered methodological rigor of the included studies.

Charting the data
A standard data extraction sheet was prepared by review team to capture all relevant aspects. This extraction sheet was developed iteratively and updated as required. The study characteristics like country of origin, objective, sample characteristics, setting, sample size and sampling method were extracted. Detailed description of the health assessment tool and the procedure of its development, composition, validity, reliability, feasibility, mode and duration of administration of the instrument were extracted from the relevant paper. After completion, the charted tables were examined further within reviewer to ensure accuracy and consistency.

Collating, Summarising and reporting the result
Narrative summary of result is presented. Tables were used to present specific details of the tools and development process. The result sections first described the characteristic of the studies, characteristics of the tool described and its clinometric or psychometric properties.
We carried out qualitative thematic analysis of the items or tools included and categorized them into 5 broad domains and further subdomains of CGA as follows (15 Similarly, we also summarized the most reported outcome measures of validity and reliability such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and receiver operating characteristics area under curve (ROC-AUC).

Results
A total of 46 studies were included in the final analysis. The PRISMA flow diagram for the study selection is provided in figure 1.
All studies were cross-sectional in nature and aimed to either develop, validate or test tools for assessment of different health parameters. A considerable number were part of larger studies or trials with different study designs and a few were multi-national in scope, but we are presenting only the . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 23, 2021. components that concerned the tool development/validation in South Asia only. All studies included participants from all genders and social classes Rathnayake-2020 which was done in post-menopausal women (16). Majority of studies did not specify the theory/model/framework used to build the tools while 5 studies (17)  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

Measures of tool
The most common measures of validity of the tools were compared with a defined "Gold standard" to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and cut-off optimization which was reported in some form for 24 tools and summarized in is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The QVSFS (26) was intended to verify the stroke-free status and Stroke impact scale to assess the post-stroke quality of life. NIMHANS Headache questionnaire (27) was used for headaches and EAR3Q(28) for bowel diseases. The EPOCH-2(18) and MNA(29) assessed cardio-vascular and nutritional status respectively and reported reliability of the tools which was good in both cases. EPOCH-2 had Kappa values of over 0.8 for all items (range:0.81-0.96) and MNA had overall kappa of 0.78. Reliability was almost perfect for items on BMI, calf circumference, independence, polypharmacy, morbidities and skin ulcers. SGRQ(30) used linear regression models to predict COPD and found a strong negative correlation between SGRQ scores and lung capacities with a ROC-AUC of 0.78 for a cut-off of 33 points. B. Psychological assessment tools-There were 4 studies each that assessed tools related to depression (PHQ/SRQ (31) (38)). All the tools for depression and dementia reported moderate to good sensitivity and specificity as shown in table 3. The CES-D scale showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.89) and factorial analysis showed significant factor item loadings and correlations between dimensions (r >0.8). Two studies reported on tools for assessment of psychological disorders (Modified DSM-III-R Criteria Checklist (22), GHQ 12 (39)). The DSM-III checklist had good construct validity which was assessed by an output of similar prevalence of common psychiatric conditions as compared to those measured by other standard tools. It had variable reliability with low alpha values for schizophrenia (0.45) and mania (0.59) and high alpha values for depression (0.92) and anxiety (0.98). All constructs had mild correlation (r<0.15) except depression and depressive mood (r=0.48). The GHQ-12 tool showed good internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.90. Factor analysis of the GHQ-12 showed that 2 significant components contributed to 59% of the variance. The correlation with subjective wellbeing index scores was moderate (r=0.58) and the study met the KMO criteria for sampling adequacy and significant Bartlett's test. Two studies reported on tools assessing cognitive impairment (HMSE(40), Alzheimer Questionnaire (41)). The HMSE had moderate sensitivity and specificity, good NPV but poor PPV as shown in table 3. The Alzheimer's questionnaire showed good agreement (Cohen's kappa=0.83) and a strong negative correlation (Spearman's Rho=-0.709) with the gold standard. It showed moderate to good sensitivity and specificity with a good PPV as shown in is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 23, 2021. ; Singh et.al., (44) compared the relationship between 3 tools for activities of daily living with age and frequency of falls. All 3 tools-ADL, IADL and POMA showed a low correlation with age (r = -0.25, -0.48 and -0.43 respectively) and moderate to high correlation with frequency of falls (r = -0.49, -0.63 and -0.49 respectively). EASY Care(23) independence scale had a good reliability with Cronbach's alpha across the 18 items over 0.89. The modified Bristol and Blessed scales(45) had very high sensitivity and moderate specificity as shown in table 3.

Physical activity
Three studies reported tools assessed for physical activity. MDRF-MPAQ (46) showed an ICC between baseline and 1st month between 0.73 -0.82 and an ICC between GPAQ and MPAQ of 0.40. Construct validity was assessed by linear association between sitting and Moderate/vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and BMI and waist circumference. Spearman's correlation coefficients against accelerometer for sedentary activity was 0.48 (95%CI-0.32-0.62), MVPA was 0.44 (0.27-0.59) and overall Physical activity for MPAQ was 0.46 (0.29-0.60).
Semi-pictorial RPAQ(47) had moderate reliability with correlations between two questionnaires administered one year apart were moderately high (r = 0.37 to 0.52). Correlations between the first questionnaire and the mean of at least 4 questionnaires administered during the course of one year were generally high (males; r = 0.69, females; r = 0.7). GPAQ (48)had very good reliability with a Cohen's kappa of 100%, Spearman's Rho between 0.40-0.59 and ICC between 0.37 to 0.81. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlation between different variables and the Spearman's Rho was between 0.89-1.00 while the ICC ranged from 0.76 to 0.91. Criterion validity was assessed by Intra-cluster correlation and kappa values which ranged from 0.68 to 0.72 and 0.51 to 0.58 respectively.
Mobility-A single study assessed mobility by an adapted version of the TUG test (49). This had a good inter-rater reliability between the student physiotherapist and caregivers with an ICC of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.91).
A single study each reported tools used to assess disability, hearing loss and falls. Their validity parameters are provided in is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint VisQoL assessed the physical, social and emotional well-being, level of independence, selfactualization, and planning and organization of individuals. The tool had good reliability and all item fit the model well. Those with low vision had statistically significant better VisQoL score as compared to those blind.  The ICT-BRIEF tool(55) measured physical, social and mental well-being along with elder abuse. Measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test of sphericity were found to be satisfactory (KMO >0.7) and the overall internal consistency as measured by Cronbach's alpha was 0.79. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 23, 2021. ; The SRH(21) measured self-rated physical, mental, functional health, chronic diseases and health behaviors. In bivariate analyses among men, all health status variables were associated with the SRH, except for drinking alcohol and eating vegetables. Among women, all health status variables were associated with the SRH item, with the exception of overweight and obesity status, drinking alcohol, physical activity and eating vegetables. In multivariable analyses among men and women, 18 and 19 health status variables respectively remained associated with the SRH item. Explained variance across health dimensions ranged from 0.176 (health behaviors) to 0.444 (functional health). Convergent validity was established by a moderate correlation between SRH and satisfaction with r=0.51.
Stroke impact scale(56) assessed the stroke-specific QoL and reported moderate positive correlations between constructs of memory, communication, ADL, mobility and hand function. It showed weak positive correlation with participation and physical domains.
The most common measures of validity of the tools were compared with a defined "Gold standard" to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and cut-off optimization which was reported in some form for 24 tools and summarized in is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

Discussion
This review aimed to identify validated tools in south Asia for geriatric health assessment in community settings and describe their psychometric properties. We undertook a scoping review as a suitable approach, as it facilitates a broad review of a topic in order to summarize the literature, identify research gaps, and inform the policymakers to establish treatment plan and program for health and functional status of elderly to increase their quality of life.
Our systematic search and screening returned 46 studies that were finally included in this review. Where 21 of the tools have been validated exclusively in the older adults (>55 years of age). A large majority of studies were from India (34) followed by Sri Lanka (5), Nepal (3), Bangladesh (2) and Pakistan (2). All these studies were conducted in rural, urban or semi-urban settings except 3 studies(55)(52)(57). 32 tools were reported in regional language. While 2 studies(43)(40) were from before 2000, many studies (32) were published in the past decade. This indicates that tool development and validation research in South Asia is a relatively recent phenomenon.
The present review reports the broad domains of CGA in order to understand how this multifaceted and complex construct is being measured by validated, scientific tools. Majority of the studies reported tools/ instruments that were either health worker administered or self-reported in nature, where various items were grouped into different subdomains. Medical and functional health assessment seems to be the major domain of CGA represented by maximum number of tools. Only 2 studies(16)(50) address domains related to social health. While assessing geriatric QoL, environment plays a very important role, but the domain is the least frequent one found. Similarly, tools assessing financial burden of illness or access to health care were not found. Interestingly only 1 tool, the MAQ-PC (54), was available which combined medical, functional, psychological, and quality of life assessment. This tool also was not developed or validated for use in older adults exclusively. This shows there is a significant gap in tools available for CGA in South Asian population and no tools combining all aspects of CGA has been validated in the region. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 23, 2021. ; We found 4 tools(17)(24)(25) (20) to assess risk of diabetes which had similar questions/items including body mass index and hypertension. We found many tools to assess depression in both rural and urban populations, among older and younger adults age groups. Similarly, for cognitive impairment, HMSE and Alzheimer's questionnaire were used for older population. Functional assessment tools specific to different disorders like dementia (EASI (43) and Modified Bristol & Blessed scale(45)), falls (POMA (44)) and frailty (EASY-care (58)) are available out of which EASI and Modified Bristol & Blessed scales are for population aged >55 years living in rural and care homes respectively while EASY-care was validated for both the rural and urban older adults (>60 years). Quality of life questionnaires included all six domains of health. However, out of these two were specific to vision (59) and one for young elderly (53).
Most of the tools reported the following measures of validity and reliability-internal consistency, interrater reliability, specificity, sensitivity and ROC-AUC. Among the reported tools, EPOCH-2(18), MNA (29), PHQ/SRQ(31), CES-D(32), GDS-15(33), PHQ-9-12(34), WHOQOL vision (59) and VisQoL (52) had been shown satisfactory values for validity and reliability in their respective domains. But the variation in intent, constructs and measurements of these tools were high and no meaningful crossdomain comparisons were possible. The sample demography for the tool's development was heterogeneous and the determination of true validity and reproducibility of the existing tools is difficult.
Majority of tools reflect specific results for health outcomes, rather than broader conceptualization of complete wellbeing. A large majority, 29 instruments, were adopted from pre-existing instruments, mostly developed for western population. This indicates insufficient research and uptake of health measurements and scales in the region. This review consolidates the conceptual basis of scales necessary for CGA and points towards areas requiring further work.
Although the identified tools were served the purpose in their respective domain, but we were unable to find a single comprehensive health assessment tool for geriatric population. Therefore, findings of this review highlight the importance of using a multidimensional validated tool in the context of geriatric population.

Limitation of the review
Only peer-reviewed articles published in English language were selected which may introduce selection bias. However, as English is the primary language for scientific communication across the region, we expect this to be minimal if any. We have not evaluated the quality of the studies included. We have limited our studies to South Asia region, this could increase the chance of missing out the studies conducted in other LMICs. However, the compliance of the review with PRISMA guidelines with robust search strategy, strengthen the confidence on findings

Conclusion: -
There are 21 tools validated exclusively for older adults. Considerable variation among tools in the context of item type, content, sample, outcome measures were observed. Only 9 tools captured multiple domains of geriatric health but there are no validated tools available for CGA in South Asia. There is a need to develop and validate a contextual tool for use in CGA in South Asian populations. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. Explain why the review questions/objectives lend themselves to a scoping review approach.

Objectives 4
Provide an explicit statement of the questions and objectives being addressed with reference to their key elements (e.g., population or participants, concepts, and context) or other relevant key elements used to conceptualize the review questions and/or objectives.

Protocol and registration 5
Indicate whether a review protocol exists; state if and where it can be accessed (e.g., a Web address); and if available, provide registration information, including the registration number.

Eligibility criteria 6
Specify characteristics of the sources of evidence used as eligibility criteria (e.g., years considered, language, and publication status), and provide a rationale.

Information sources 7
Describe all information sources in the search (e.g., databases with dates of coverage and contact with authors to identify additional sources), as well as the date the most recent search was executed.

Search 8
Present the full electronic search strategy for at least 1 database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

√
Selection of sources of evidence 9 State the process for selecting sources of evidence (i.e., screening and eligibility) included in the scoping review.
√ Data charting process 10 Describe the methods of charting data from the included sources of evidence (e.g., calibrated forms or forms that have been tested by the team before their use, and whether data charting was done independently or in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

Data items 11
List and define all variables for which data were sought and any assumptions and simplifications made. If done, provide a rationale for conducting a critical appraisal of included sources of evidence; describe the methods used and how this information was used in any data synthesis (if appropriate).

Synthesis of results 13
Describe the methods of handling and summarizing the data that were charted. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 23, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.19.21252051 doi: medRxiv preprint