The vitality domain of intrinsic capacity: A scoping review of conceptual frameworks and measurements

Jun 14, 2025The Journal of frailty & aging

The energy and strength part of natural ability: An overview of ideas and measurements

AI simplified

Longevity & Aging on OpenScience ↗PubMed ↗DOI ↗

Abstract

Eighty-one studies were identified that focused on vitality as a component of intrinsic capacity in adults aged 50 and older.

Vitality is a composite indicator that includes physical and mental capacities essential for healthy aging.
Initial frameworks emphasized nutritional indicators, while recent studies have expanded to include neuromuscular function, metabolism, and immune-stress responses.
Operational definitions of vitality remain inconsistent, with a reliance on measures such as appetite, weight loss, and handgrip strength.
Only 10.5% of studies evaluated the construct validity of vitality, indicating a gap in empirical validation.
There is limited exploration of how vitality interacts with other domains of intrinsic capacity.

AI simplified

BACKGROUND: Intrinsic capacity (IC) is a composite indicator of physical and mental capacities that are critical for healthy aging. IC comprises five domains, with "vitality" gaining most attention due to its potential impact on functional and physiological reserves with increasing age. The World Health Organization 2022 framework redefined vitality as an underlying physiological determinant of IC. However, the concept and measurement of vitality and its empirical validation are not well defined.

OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aims to: (1) map the conceptual frameworks underpinning vitality within the IC domain and (2) identify existing measures used to assess vitality.

METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and WHO databases (2003-2023) using Arksey and O'Malley's framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Studies involving adults ≥50 years old that addressed vitality in IC were included. We extracted data on conceptual frameworks, measurement tools, and construct validity.

RESULTS: Eighty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Initial frameworks of vitality focused on nutritional indicators, while recent concepts include neuromuscular function, metabolism, and immune-stress responses. However, operationalization of these concepts remains inconsistent, with most studies relying on anthropometry, appetite, weight loss, and handgrip strength, while immune and stress response-related biomarkers were rarely assessed. Only 10.5 % of studies evaluated construct validity of vitality, and limited studies validated the potential roles of vitality underpinning the other expressed capacities.

CONCLUSIONS: Currently, vitality within IC varies in definitions and measurement approaches, with a predominant focus on nutrition and muscle strength. Empirical validation of vitality's role as a foundational IC domain remains limited. Expanding the scope of vitality to include metabolic and immune markers, and deeper examination of the interactions between vitality with other IC domains may enhance understanding and improve assessment frameworks for healthy aging.

Full Text

We can’t show the full text here under this license. Use the link below to read it at the source.

View full text (XML) ↗View full text ↗

The vitality domain of intrinsic capacity: A scoping review of conceptual frameworks and measurements

Abstract

Full Text

You found one interesting study. We’ll send the next 7.

what lands in your inbox each week:

Recent issues from the longevity & aging brief

Abstract

Full Text

Related papers

You found one interesting study. We’ll send the next 7.

what lands in your inbox each week:

Recent issues from the longevity & aging brief