39
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The prevalence and health consequences of frailty in a population-based older home care cohort: a comparison of different measures

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Evaluating different approaches to identifying frail home care clients at heightened risk for adverse health outcomes is an important but understudied area. Our objectives were to determine the prevalence and correlates of frailty (as operationally defined by three measures) in a home care cohort, the agreement between these measures, and their predictive validity for several outcomes assessed over one year.

          Methods

          We conducted a retrospective cohort study with linked population-based administrative and clinical (Resident Assessment Instrument [RAI]) data for all long-stay home care clients (aged 66+) assessed between April 2010–2013 in Ontario, Canada ( n = 234,552). We examined two versions of a frailty index ( FI), a full and modified FI, and the CHESS scale, compared their baseline characteristics and their predictive accuracy (by calculating the area under the ROC curve [AUC]) for death, long-term care (LTC) admission, and hospitalization endpoints in models adjusted for age, sex and comorbidity.

          Results

          Frailty prevalence varied by measure (19.5, 24.4 and 44.1 %, for full FI, modified FI and CHESS, respectively) and was similar among female and male clients. All three measures were associated with a significantly increased risk of death, LTC admission and hospitalization endpoints in adjusted analyses but their addition to base models resulted in modest improvement for most AUC estimates. There were significant differences between measures in predictive accuracy, with the full FI demonstrating a higher AUC for LTC admission and CHESS a higher AUC for hospitalization - although none of the measures performed well for the hospitalization endpoints.

          Conclusions

          The different approaches to detecting vulnerability resulted in different estimates of frailty prevalence among home care clients in Ontario. Although all three measures were significant predictors of the health outcomes examined, the gains in predictive accuracy were often modest with the exception of the full FI in predicting LTC admission. Our findings provide some support for the clinical utility of a comprehensive FI measure and also illustrate that it is feasible to derive such a measure at the population level using routinely collected data. This may facilitate further research on frailty in this setting, including the development and evaluation of interventions for frailty.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12877-016-0309-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty, and comorbidity: implications for improved targeting and care.

          Three terms are commonly used interchangeably to identify vulnerable older adults: comorbidity, or multiple chronic conditions, frailty, and disability. However, in geriatric medicine, there is a growing consensus that these are distinct clinical entities that are causally related. Each, individually, occurs frequently and has high import clinically. This article provides a narrative review of current understanding of the definitions and distinguishing characteristics of each of these conditions, including their clinical relevance and distinct prevention and therapeutic issues, and how they are related. Review of the current state of published knowledge is supplemented by targeted analyses in selected areas where no current published data exists. Overall, the goal of this article is to provide a basis for distinguishing between these three important clinical conditions in older adults and showing how use of separate, distinct definitions of each can improve our understanding of the problems affecting older patients and lead to development of improved strategies for diagnosis, care, research, and medical education in this area.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Frailty: an emerging research and clinical paradigm--issues and controversies.

            Clinicians and researchers have shown increasing interest in frailty. Yet, there is still considerable uncertainty regarding the concept and its definition. In this article, we present perspectives on key issues and controversies discussed by scientists from 13 different countries, representing a diverse range of disciplines, at the 2006 Second International Working Meeting on Frailty and Aging. The following fundamental questions are discussed: What is the distinction, if any, between frailty and aging? What is its relationship with chronic disease? Is frailty a syndrome or a series of age-related impairments that predict adverse outcomes? What are the critical domains in its operational definition? Is frailty a useful concept? The implications of different models and approaches are examined. Although consensus has yet to be attained, work accomplished to date has opened exciting new horizons. The article concludes with suggested directions for future research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Frailty: emergence and consequences in women aged 65 and older in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study.

              To define frailty using simple indicators; to identify risk factors for frailty as targets for prevention; and to investigate the predictive validity of this frailty classification for death, hospitalization, hip fracture, and activity of daily living (ADL) disability. Prospective study, the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study. Forty U.S. clinical centers. Forty thousand six hundred fifty-seven women aged 65 to 79 at baseline. Components of frailty included self-reported muscle weakness/impaired walking, exhaustion, low physical activity, and unintended weight loss between baseline and 3 years of follow-up. Death, hip fractures, ADL disability, and hospitalizations were ascertained during an average of 5.9 years of follow-up. Baseline frailty was classified in 16.3% of participants, and incident frailty at 3-years was 14.8%. Older age, chronic conditions, smoking, and depressive symptom score were positively associated with incident frailty, whereas income, moderate alcohol use, living alone, and self-reported health were inversely associated. Being underweight, overweight, or obese all carried significantly higher risk of frailty than normal weight. Baseline frailty independently predicted risk of death (hazard ratio (HR)=1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.48-1.97), hip fracture (HR=1.57, 95% CI=1.11-2.20), ADL disability (odds ratio (OR)=3.15, 95% CI=2.47-4.02), and hospitalizations (OR=1.95, 95% CI=1.72-2.22) after adjustment for demographic characteristics, health behaviors, disability, and comorbid conditions. These results support the robustness of the concept of frailty as a geriatric syndrome that predicts several poor outcomes in older women. Underweight, obesity, smoking, and depressive symptoms are strongly associated with the development of frailty and represent important targets for prevention.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                michael.campitelli@ices.on.ca
                susan.bronskill@ices.on.ca
                dhogan@ucalgary.ca
                christina.diong@ices.on.ca
                jamuah@uottawa.ca
                gills@providencecare.ca
                seitzd@providencecare.ca
                kthavorn@ohri.ca
                walter.wodchis@utoronto.ca
                colleen.maxwell@uwaterloo.ca
                Journal
                BMC Geriatr
                BMC Geriatr
                BMC Geriatrics
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2318
                7 July 2016
                7 July 2016
                2016
                : 16
                : 133
                Affiliations
                [ ]Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, 2075 Bayview Ave., Toronto, ON M4N 3M5 Canada
                [ ]Division of Geriatric Medicine, University of Calgary, HSC-3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1 Canada
                [ ]School of Epidemiology, Public Health & Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON K1H 8M5 Canada
                [ ]Department of Medicine, Queen’s University and St Mary’s of the Lake Hospital, 340 Union Street, Kingston, ON K7L 5A2 Canada
                [ ]Division of Geriatric Psychiatry, Queen’s University and Providence Care, 752 King Street W., Kingston, ON K7L 4X3 Canada
                [ ]Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box201B, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6 Canada
                [ ]Institute of Health Policy Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, ON M5T 3M6 Canada
                [ ]Schools of Pharmacy and Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. W., Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1 Canada
                Article
                309
                10.1186/s12877-016-0309-z
                4937594
                27388294
                74207c7e-3e0c-47d0-b0d8-cc255760c39e
                © The Author(s). 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.

                History
                : 15 February 2016
                : 14 June 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024, Canadian Institutes of Health Research;
                Award ID: DRB-134053
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Geriatric medicine
                frailty,home care,older adults,health outcomes,predictive validity
                Geriatric medicine
                frailty, home care, older adults, health outcomes, predictive validity

                Comments

                Comment on this article