Cargando…

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

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 fr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Op het Veld, Linda P. M., van Rossum, Erik, Kempen, Gertrudis I. J. M., de Vet, Henrica C. W., Hajema, KlaasJan, Beurskens, Anna J. H. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4496916/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26155837
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0078-0
_version_ 1782380484176642048
author Op het Veld, Linda P. M.
van Rossum, Erik
Kempen, Gertrudis I. J. M.
de Vet, Henrica C. W.
Hajema, KlaasJan
Beurskens, Anna J. H. M.
author_facet Op het Veld, Linda P. M.
van Rossum, Erik
Kempen, Gertrudis I. J. M.
de Vet, Henrica C. W.
Hajema, KlaasJan
Beurskens, Anna J. H. M.
author_sort Op het Veld, Linda P. M.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4496916
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44969162015-07-10 Fried phenotype of frailty: cross-sectional comparison of three frailty stages on various health domains Op het Veld, Linda P. M. van Rossum, Erik Kempen, Gertrudis I. J. M. de Vet, Henrica C. W. Hajema, KlaasJan Beurskens, Anna J. H. M. BMC Geriatr Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2015-07-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4496916/ /pubmed/26155837 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0078-0 Text en © Op het Veld et al. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Op het Veld, Linda P. M.
van Rossum, Erik
Kempen, Gertrudis I. J. M.
de Vet, Henrica C. W.
Hajema, KlaasJan
Beurskens, Anna J. H. M.
Fried phenotype of frailty: cross-sectional comparison of three frailty stages on various health domains
title Fried phenotype of frailty: cross-sectional comparison of three frailty stages on various health domains
title_full Fried phenotype of frailty: cross-sectional comparison of three frailty stages on various health domains
title_fullStr Fried phenotype of frailty: cross-sectional comparison of three frailty stages on various health domains
title_full_unstemmed Fried phenotype of frailty: cross-sectional comparison of three frailty stages on various health domains
title_short Fried phenotype of frailty: cross-sectional comparison of three frailty stages on various health domains
title_sort fried phenotype of frailty: cross-sectional comparison of three frailty stages on various health domains
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4496916/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26155837
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0078-0
work_keys_str_mv AT ophetveldlindapm friedphenotypeoffrailtycrosssectionalcomparisonofthreefrailtystagesonvarioushealthdomains
AT vanrossumerik friedphenotypeoffrailtycrosssectionalcomparisonofthreefrailtystagesonvarioushealthdomains
AT kempengertrudisijm friedphenotypeoffrailtycrosssectionalcomparisonofthreefrailtystagesonvarioushealthdomains
AT devethenricacw friedphenotypeoffrailtycrosssectionalcomparisonofthreefrailtystagesonvarioushealthdomains
AT hajemaklaasjan friedphenotypeoffrailtycrosssectionalcomparisonofthreefrailtystagesonvarioushealthdomains
AT beurskensannajhm friedphenotypeoffrailtycrosssectionalcomparisonofthreefrailtystagesonvarioushealthdomains