BACKGROUND: This study validates cut-points for a frailty index (FI) to identify seniors at risk of a hospital-related event and estimates the number of frail seniors living in the community. The FI developed by Rockwood and Mitnitski defines levels of frailty based on scores of 0 to 1.0. DATA AND METHODS: The cut-point validation was conducted using Stratum-Specific Likelihood Ratios applied to combined 2003 and 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) data, linked to hospital records from the Discharge Abstract Database (2002 to 2007). Based on the validated cut-points, frailty prevalence was estimated using 2009/2010 CCHS data. RESULTS: Seniors scoring more than 0.21 on the FI were considered to be at elevated risk of hospital-related events. Four additional frailty levels were identified: non-frail (0 to ≤0.1), pre-frail (>0.1 to ≤0.21), more frail (>0.30 to ≤0.35) (women only), and most frail (frail-group subset) (0.45 or more). The number of community-dwelling seniors considered to be frail was estimated at about 1 million (24%) in 2009/2010; another 1.4 million (32%) could be considered pre-frail. Frailty prevalence rose with age; was higher among women than among men; and varied by geographic location. INTERPRETATION: A cut-point of more than 0.21 can be used to identify frail seniors living in the community.
BACKGROUND: This study validates cut-points for a frailty index (FI) to identify seniors at risk of a hospital-related event and estimates the number of frail seniors living in the community. The FI developed by Rockwood and Mitnitski defines levels of frailty based on scores of 0 to 1.0. DATA AND METHODS: The cut-point validation was conducted using Stratum-Specific Likelihood Ratios applied to combined 2003 and 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) data, linked to hospital records from the Discharge Abstract Database (2002 to 2007). Based on the validated cut-points, frailty prevalence was estimated using 2009/2010 CCHS data. RESULTS: Seniors scoring more than 0.21 on the FI were considered to be at elevated risk of hospital-related events. Four additional frailty levels were identified: non-frail (0 to ≤0.1), pre-frail (>0.1 to ≤0.21), more frail (>0.30 to ≤0.35) (women only), and most frail (frail-group subset) (0.45 or more). The number of community-dwelling seniors considered to be frail was estimated at about 1 million (24%) in 2009/2010; another 1.4 million (32%) could be considered pre-frail. Frailty prevalence rose with age; was higher among women than among men; and varied by geographic location. INTERPRETATION: A cut-point of more than 0.21 can be used to identify frail seniors living in the community.
Entities:
Keywords:
activities of daily living; health status indicators; hospital records; probabilistic linkage; validation studies
Authors: Nicholas M Pajewski; Kristin Lenoir; Brian J Wells; Jeff D Williamson; Kathryn E Callahan Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Nicholas M Pajewski; Jeff D Williamson; William B Applegate; Dan R Berlowitz; Linda P Bolin; Glenn M Chertow; Marie A Krousel-Wood; Nieves Lopez-Barrera; James R Powell; Christianne L Roumie; Carolyn Still; Kaycee M Sink; Rocky Tang; Clinton B Wright; Mark A Supiano Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Caitlin Lees; Judith Godin; Janet E McElhaney; Shelly A McNeil; Mark Loeb; Todd F Hatchette; Jason LeBlanc; William Bowie; Guy Boivin; Allison McGeer; André Poirier; Jeff Powis; Makeda Semret; Duncan Webster; Melissa K Andrew Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Rebecca J Kamil; Joshua Betz; Becky Brott Powers; Sheila Pratt; Stephen Kritchevsky; Hilsa N Ayonayon; Tammy B Harris; Elizabeth Helzner; Jennifer A Deal; Kathryn Martin; Matthew Peterson; Suzanne Satterfield; Eleanor M Simonsick; Frank R Lin Journal: J Aging Health Date: 2015-10-05
Authors: Lisa McGarrigle; Emma Squires; Lindsay M K Wallace; Judith Godin; Mary Gorman; Kenneth Rockwood; Olga Theou Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Jeff D Williamson; Mark A Supiano; William B Applegate; Dan R Berlowitz; Ruth C Campbell; Glenn M Chertow; Larry J Fine; William E Haley; Amret T Hawfield; Joachim H Ix; Dalane W Kitzman; John B Kostis; Marie A Krousel-Wood; Lenore J Launer; Suzanne Oparil; Carlos J Rodriguez; Christianne L Roumie; Ronald I Shorr; Kaycee M Sink; Virginia G Wadley; Paul K Whelton; Jeffrey Whittle; Nancy F Woolard; Jackson T Wright; Nicholas M Pajewski Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 56.272