Substitution of Fried's performance-based physical frailty criteria with self-report questions

Objective To identify self-report questions that can substitute Fried's performance-based frailty measures for use in large-scale studies and daily practice. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted among community dwelling older people (65 + ). Based on a literature search and interviews with older people and experts, 11 questions concerning walk time and 10 on handgrip strength were selected. All participants completed these sets of self-report questions as well as the original Fried criteria (including performance-based tests). Regression analyses were performed to find the questions that best substituted the performance-based tests. Results In total, 135 individuals (mean age 73.8 ± 7.0, 58.5% female) in different stages of frailty (non-frail 38.5%, pre-frail 40.7%, frail 20.7%) were included. Regression analyses revealed four questions for walk time and two for handgrip strength. Cut-off values of three for walk time (range 0–5) and one for handgrip strength (range 0–3) seem most optimal. This resulted in a sensitivity of 69.2%, 86.1% specificity and 79.4% agreement for walk time and a sensitivity of 73.2%, 71.3% specificity and 71.9% agreement for handgrip strength. The comparison of frailty stages using frailty criteria including the performance-based measures and scores based solely on self-report questions, resulted in an observed agreement of 71.1% (kappa value = 0.55). Conclusions Considering the agreement between the questions and the performance-based tests, these two sets of questions might be used in settings where the performance-based tests of walk time and handgrip strength are unfeasible, such as in daily practice and large-scale research

The ability of four frailty screening instruments to predict mortality, hospitalization and dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living

The aim of this study was to assess the predictive ability of the frailty phenotype (FP), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and frailty index (FI) for the outcomes mortality, hospitalization and increase in dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living ((I)ADL) among older persons. This prospective cohort study with 2-year follow-up included 2420 Dutch community-dwelling older people (65+, mean age 76.3±6.6 years, 39.5% male) who were pre-frail or frail according to the FP. Mortality data were obtained from Statistics Netherlands. All other data were self-reported. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) was calculated for each frailty instrument and outcome measure. The prevalence of frailty, sensitivity and specifcity were calculated using cutoff values proposed by the developers and cutoff values one above and one below the proposed ones (0.05 for FI). All frailty instruments poorly predicted mortality, hospitalization and (I)ADL dependency (AUCs between 0.62–0.65, 0.59–0.63 and 0.60–0.64, respectively). Prevalence estimates of frailty in this population varied between 22.2% (FP) and 64.8% (TFI). The FP and FI showed higher levels of specifcity, whereas sensitivity was higher for the GFI and TFI. Using a different cutoff point considerably changed the prevalence, sensitivity and specifcity. In conclusion, the predictive ability of the FP, GFI, TFI and FI was poor for all outcomes in a population of pre-frail and frail community-dwelling older people. The FP and the FI showed higher values of specifcity, whereas sensitivity was higher for the GFI and TFI

Concordances and differences between a unidimensional and multidimensional assessment of frailty: a cross-sectional study

Background: Many instruments to identify frail older people have been developed. One of the consequences is that the prevalence rates of frailty vary widely dependent on the instrument selected. The aims of this study were 1) to examine the concordances and differences between a unidimensional and multidimensional assessment of frailty, 2) to assess to what extent the characteristics of a 'frail sample' differ depending on the selected frailty measurement because 'being frail' is used in many studies as an inclusion criterion.Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 196 community-dwelling older adults (&gt;= 60 years), which were selected from the census records. Unidimensional frailty was operationalized according to the Fried Phenotype (FP) and multidimensional frailty was measured with the Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Instrument (CFAI). The concordances and differences were examined by prevalence, correlations, observed agreement and Kappa values. Differences between sample characteristics (e.g., age, physical activity, life satisfaction) were investigated with ANOVA and Kruskall-Wallis test.Results: The mean age was 72.74 (SD 8.04) and 48.98% was male. According to the FP 23.59% was not-frail, 56.92% pre-frail and 19.49% frail. According to the CFAI, 44.33% was no-to-low frail, 37.63% was mild frail and 18.04% was high frail. The correlation between FP and the CFAI was r = 0.46 and the observed agreement was 52.85%. The Kappa value was kappa = 0.35 (quadratic kappa = 0.45). In total, 11.92% of the participants were frail according to both measurements, 7.77% was solely frail according to the FP and 6.21% was solely frail according to the CFAI. The 'frail sample respondents' according to the FP had higher levels of life satisfaction and net income, but performed less physical activities in comparison to high frail people according to the CFAI.Conclusion: The present study shows that the FP and CFAI partly measure the same 'frailty-construct', although differences were found for instance in the prevalence of frailty and the composition of the 'frail participants'. Since 'being frail' is an inclusion criterion in many studies, researchers must be aware that the choice of the frailty measurement has an impact on both the estimates of frailty prevalence and the characteristics of the selected sample.</p