Limits...
Fried phenotype of frailty: cross-sectional comparison of three frailty stages on various health domains.

Op het Veld LP, van Rossum E, Kempen GI, de Vet HC, Hajema K, Beurskens AJ - BMC Geriatr (2015)

Bottom Line: The difference between the scores in the social, psychological and physical domains were statistically significant between the three frailty stages.When older people were categorised according to the three frailty stages, as described by Fried and colleagues, there were statistically significant differences in the level of social, psychological and physical functioning between the non-frail, pre-frail and frail persons.Non-frail participants had consistently more preferable scores compared to the frail participants.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre of Research Autonomy and Participation for Persons with a Chronic Illness, Faculty of Health, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Nieuw Eyckholt 300, 6419DJ, Heerlen, The Netherlands. linda.ophetveld@zuyd.nl.

ABSTRACT

Background: The population ageing in most Western countries leads to a larger number of frail older people. These frail people are at an increased risk of negative health outcomes, such as functional decline, falls, institutionalisation and mortality. Many approaches are available for identifying frailty among older people. Researchers most often use Fried and colleagues' description of the frailty phenotype. The authors describe five physical criteria. Other researchers prefer a combination of measurements in the social, psychological and/or physical domains. The aim of this study is to describe the levels of social, psychological and physical functioning according to Fried's frailty stages using a large cohort of Dutch community-dwelling older people.

Methods: There were 8,684 community-dwelling older people (65+) who participated in this cross-sectional study. Based on the five Fried frailty criteria (weight loss, exhaustion, low physical activity, slowness, weakness), the participants were divided into three stages: non-frail (score 0), pre-frail (score 1-2) and frail (score 3-5). These stages were related to scores in the social (social network type, informal care use, loneliness), psychological (psychological distress, mastery, self-management) and physical (chronic diseases, GARS IADL-disability, OECD disability) domains.

Results: 63.2% of the participants was non-frail, 28.1% pre-frail and 8.7% frail. When comparing the three stages of frailty, frail people appeared to be older, were more likely to be female, were more often unmarried or living alone, and had a lower level of education compared to their pre-frail and non-frail counterparts. The difference between the scores in the social, psychological and physical domains were statistically significant between the three frailty stages. The most preferable scores came from the non-frail group, and least preferable scores were from the frail group. For example use of informal care: non-frail 3.9%, pre-frail 23.8%, frail 60.6%, and GARS IADL-disability mean scores: non-frail 9.2, pre-frail 13.0, frail 19.7.

Conclusion: When older people were categorised according to the three frailty stages, as described by Fried and colleagues, there were statistically significant differences in the level of social, psychological and physical functioning between the non-frail, pre-frail and frail persons. Non-frail participants had consistently more preferable scores compared to the frail participants. This indicated that the Fried frailty criteria could help healthcare professionals identify and treat frail older people in an efficient way, and provide indications for problems in other domains.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Prevalence of each frailty criterion as proposed by Fried and colleagues
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4496916&req=5

Fig1: Prevalence of each frailty criterion as proposed by Fried and colleagues

Mentions: Figure 1 shows the prevalence of each frailty criterion. In this study, 20 % of the participants reported problems with grip strength. Weight loss was reported less often than were the other problems (8 %). The total number of frailty components that were present in the study population is shown in Table 2. In total, 63.2 % of the participants were not frail, 28.1 % were pre-frail and 8.7 % were frail. There were differences between men and women. Men were more often not frail (72.9 % vs. 52.2 %) whereas women were more often pre-frail (35.5 % vs. 21.6 %) or frail (12.3 % vs. 5.5 %).Fig. 1


Fried phenotype of frailty: cross-sectional comparison of three frailty stages on various health domains.

Op het Veld LP, van Rossum E, Kempen GI, de Vet HC, Hajema K, Beurskens AJ - BMC Geriatr (2015)

Prevalence of each frailty criterion as proposed by Fried and colleagues
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4496916&req=5

Fig1: Prevalence of each frailty criterion as proposed by Fried and colleagues
Mentions: Figure 1 shows the prevalence of each frailty criterion. In this study, 20 % of the participants reported problems with grip strength. Weight loss was reported less often than were the other problems (8 %). The total number of frailty components that were present in the study population is shown in Table 2. In total, 63.2 % of the participants were not frail, 28.1 % were pre-frail and 8.7 % were frail. There were differences between men and women. Men were more often not frail (72.9 % vs. 52.2 %) whereas women were more often pre-frail (35.5 % vs. 21.6 %) or frail (12.3 % vs. 5.5 %).Fig. 1

Bottom Line: The difference between the scores in the social, psychological and physical domains were statistically significant between the three frailty stages.When older people were categorised according to the three frailty stages, as described by Fried and colleagues, there were statistically significant differences in the level of social, psychological and physical functioning between the non-frail, pre-frail and frail persons.Non-frail participants had consistently more preferable scores compared to the frail participants.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre of Research Autonomy and Participation for Persons with a Chronic Illness, Faculty of Health, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Nieuw Eyckholt 300, 6419DJ, Heerlen, The Netherlands. linda.ophetveld@zuyd.nl.

ABSTRACT

Background: The population ageing in most Western countries leads to a larger number of frail older people. These frail people are at an increased risk of negative health outcomes, such as functional decline, falls, institutionalisation and mortality. Many approaches are available for identifying frailty among older people. Researchers most often use Fried and colleagues' description of the frailty phenotype. The authors describe five physical criteria. Other researchers prefer a combination of measurements in the social, psychological and/or physical domains. The aim of this study is to describe the levels of social, psychological and physical functioning according to Fried's frailty stages using a large cohort of Dutch community-dwelling older people.

Methods: There were 8,684 community-dwelling older people (65+) who participated in this cross-sectional study. Based on the five Fried frailty criteria (weight loss, exhaustion, low physical activity, slowness, weakness), the participants were divided into three stages: non-frail (score 0), pre-frail (score 1-2) and frail (score 3-5). These stages were related to scores in the social (social network type, informal care use, loneliness), psychological (psychological distress, mastery, self-management) and physical (chronic diseases, GARS IADL-disability, OECD disability) domains.

Results: 63.2% of the participants was non-frail, 28.1% pre-frail and 8.7% frail. When comparing the three stages of frailty, frail people appeared to be older, were more likely to be female, were more often unmarried or living alone, and had a lower level of education compared to their pre-frail and non-frail counterparts. The difference between the scores in the social, psychological and physical domains were statistically significant between the three frailty stages. The most preferable scores came from the non-frail group, and least preferable scores were from the frail group. For example use of informal care: non-frail 3.9%, pre-frail 23.8%, frail 60.6%, and GARS IADL-disability mean scores: non-frail 9.2, pre-frail 13.0, frail 19.7.

Conclusion: When older people were categorised according to the three frailty stages, as described by Fried and colleagues, there were statistically significant differences in the level of social, psychological and physical functioning between the non-frail, pre-frail and frail persons. Non-frail participants had consistently more preferable scores compared to the frail participants. This indicated that the Fried frailty criteria could help healthcare professionals identify and treat frail older people in an efficient way, and provide indications for problems in other domains.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus