OBJECTIVE: To study fragile elderly people in the population, their characteristics and their distribution according to fragility markers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, descriptive study using a survey. SETTING: Primary care. Elderly people living in Guadalajara in January 2002. PARTICIPANTS: 434 people were interviewed (1.24% of population). There were 157 losses (26.6%). INTERVENTIONS: The questionnaire contained social and demographic variables (age, sex, setting), care variables (medication, pathologies, home care) and evaluative scales (Barthel, Folstein, Yesavage, Diaz-Palacios). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Fragility markers: 3 or more pathologies, 6 or more drugs, dementia, and/or positive on one of the four scales used. RESULTS: Subjects lived in rural areas more (56.7%; CI, 52-61.3), but there were not more women. Fragile elderly, n=257 (59.2%; CI, 54.6-63.8), were more women (OR=1.8; CI, 1.5-2.2) and over 70 (OR=80-84, 5.2; CI, 3.7-7.5; OR=85-89, 8.2; CI, 5.3-12.8). Prevalence of markers was: 3 or more pathologies, 30.2% (95% CI, 25.8-34.5); cognitive deterioration, 22.6% (95% CI, 18.7-26.5); social risk, 20.8% (95% CI, 16.3-23.8); multi-medication, 18.7% (95% CI, 15-22.3); Barthel incapacity, 11.7 (95% CI, 8.7-14.8); depression, 5.3% (95% CI, 3.2-7.5); and dementia, 3.2% (95% CI, 1.6-4.9). Women suffered cognitive deterioration more. The over-80s suffered cognitive deterioration, social risk and incapacity more. CONCLUSIONS: There was high prevalence of fragility with cognitive deterioration, multi-medication and social risk; and lower presence of dementia. Women and the most elderly people were most affected.
OBJECTIVE: To study fragile elderly people in the population, their characteristics and their distribution according to fragility markers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, descriptive study using a survey. SETTING: Primary care. Elderly people living in Guadalajara in January 2002. PARTICIPANTS: 434 people were interviewed (1.24% of population). There were 157 losses (26.6%). INTERVENTIONS: The questionnaire contained social and demographic variables (age, sex, setting), care variables (medication, pathologies, home care) and evaluative scales (Barthel, Folstein, Yesavage, Diaz-Palacios). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Fragility markers: 3 or more pathologies, 6 or more drugs, dementia, and/or positive on one of the four scales used. RESULTS: Subjects lived in rural areas more (56.7%; CI, 52-61.3), but there were not more women. Fragile elderly, n=257 (59.2%; CI, 54.6-63.8), were more women (OR=1.8; CI, 1.5-2.2) and over 70 (OR=80-84, 5.2; CI, 3.7-7.5; OR=85-89, 8.2; CI, 5.3-12.8). Prevalence of markers was: 3 or more pathologies, 30.2% (95% CI, 25.8-34.5); cognitive deterioration, 22.6% (95% CI, 18.7-26.5); social risk, 20.8% (95% CI, 16.3-23.8); multi-medication, 18.7% (95% CI, 15-22.3); Barthel incapacity, 11.7 (95% CI, 8.7-14.8); depression, 5.3% (95% CI, 3.2-7.5); and dementia, 3.2% (95% CI, 1.6-4.9). Women suffered cognitive deterioration more. The over-80s suffered cognitive deterioration, social risk and incapacity more. CONCLUSIONS: There was high prevalence of fragility with cognitive deterioration, multi-medication and social risk; and lower presence of dementia. Women and the most elderly people were most affected.
Authors: Vanessa Aznar-Tortonda; Antonio Palazón-Bru; David Manuel Folgado-de la Rosa; Virginia Espínola-Morel; Bierca Fermina Pérez-Pérez; Ana Belén León-Ruiz; Vicente Francisco Gil-Guillén Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2019-12-26 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Basilio J De la Torre; Manuel Chaparro; Juan O Romanillos; Sara Zarzoso; Margarita Mosquera; Gil Rodriguez Journal: Indian J Orthop Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 1.251
Authors: N Mokhber; Mr Majdi; M Ali-Abadi; Mt Shakeri; M Kimiagar; R Salek; P Ahmadi Moghaddam; A Sakhdari; M Azimi-Nezhad; M Ghayour-Mobarhan; Ss Soluti Journal: Iran J Public Health Date: 2011-06-30 Impact factor: 1.429