O Theou1, M D L O'Connell2, B L King-Kallimanis2, A M O'Halloran2, K Rockwood1, R A Kenny3. 1. Dalhousie University, Geriatric Medicine, Veterans' Memorial Building, 5955 Veterans' Memorial Lane, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H2E1, Canada. 2. The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing, Department of Medical Gerontology, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland. 3. The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing, Department of Medical Gerontology, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland Mercer's Institute for Successful Ageing, St. James's Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: previously, frailty indices were constructed using mostly subjective health measures. The reporting error in this type of measure can have implications on the robustness of frailty findings. OBJECTIVE: to examine whether frailty assessment differs when we construct frailty indices using solely self-reported or test-based health measures. DESIGN: secondary analysis of data from The Irish LongituDinal study on Ageing (TILDA). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 4,961 Irish residents (mean age: 61.9 ± 8.4; 54.2% women) over the age of 50 years who underwent a health assessment were included in this analysis. We constructed three frailty indices using 33 self-reported health measures (SRFI), 33 test-based health measures (TBFI) and all 66 measures combined (CFI). The 2-year follow-up outcomes examined were all-cause mortality, disability, hospitalisation and falls. RESULTS: all three indices had a right-skewed distribution, an upper limit to frailty, a non-linear increase with age, and had a dose-response relationship with adverse outcomes. Levels of frailty were lower when self-reported items were used (SRFI: 0.12 ± 0.09; TBFI: 0.17 ± 0.15; CFI: 0.14 ± 0.13). Men had slightly higher frailty index scores than women when test-based measures were used (men: 0.17 ± 0.09; women: 0.16 ± 0.10). CFI had the strongest prediction for risk of adverse outcomes (ROC: 0.64-0.81), and age was not a significant predictor when it was included in the regression model. CONCLUSIONS: except for sex differences, characteristics of frailty are similar regardless of whether self-reported or test-based measures are used exclusively to construct a frailty index. Where available, self-reported and test-based measures should be combined when trying to identify levels of frailty.
BACKGROUND: previously, frailty indices were constructed using mostly subjective health measures. The reporting error in this type of measure can have implications on the robustness of frailty findings. OBJECTIVE: to examine whether frailty assessment differs when we construct frailty indices using solely self-reported or test-based health measures. DESIGN: secondary analysis of data from The Irish LongituDinal study on Ageing (TILDA). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 4,961 Irish residents (mean age: 61.9 ± 8.4; 54.2% women) over the age of 50 years who underwent a health assessment were included in this analysis. We constructed three frailty indices using 33 self-reported health measures (SRFI), 33 test-based health measures (TBFI) and all 66 measures combined (CFI). The 2-year follow-up outcomes examined were all-cause mortality, disability, hospitalisation and falls. RESULTS: all three indices had a right-skewed distribution, an upper limit to frailty, a non-linear increase with age, and had a dose-response relationship with adverse outcomes. Levels of frailty were lower when self-reported items were used (SRFI: 0.12 ± 0.09; TBFI: 0.17 ± 0.15; CFI: 0.14 ± 0.13). Men had slightly higher frailty index scores than women when test-based measures were used (men: 0.17 ± 0.09; women: 0.16 ± 0.10). CFI had the strongest prediction for risk of adverse outcomes (ROC: 0.64-0.81), and age was not a significant predictor when it was included in the regression model. CONCLUSIONS: except for sex differences, characteristics of frailty are similar regardless of whether self-reported or test-based measures are used exclusively to construct a frailty index. Where available, self-reported and test-based measures should be combined when trying to identify levels of frailty.
Authors: N M de Vries; J B Staal; C D van Ravensberg; J S M Hobbelen; M G M Olde Rikkert; M W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden Journal: Ageing Res Rev Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 10.895
Authors: John E Morley; Bruno Vellas; G Abellan van Kan; Stefan D Anker; Juergen M Bauer; Roberto Bernabei; Matteo Cesari; W C Chumlea; Wolfram Doehner; Jonathan Evans; Linda P Fried; Jack M Guralnik; Paul R Katz; Theodore K Malmstrom; Roger J McCarter; Luis M Gutierrez Robledo; Ken Rockwood; Stephan von Haehling; Maurits F Vandewoude; Jeremy Walston Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Alexander M Kulminski; Irina V Culminskaya; Svetlana V Ukraintseva; Konstantin G Arbeev; Kenneth C Land; Anatoli I Yashin Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2008-09-20 Impact factor: 4.032
Authors: José Juan García-González; Carmen García-Peña; Francisco Franco-Marina; Luis Miguel Gutiérrez-Robledo Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Joanna M Blodgett; Mario U Pérez-Zepeda; Judith Godin; D Scott Kehler; Melissa K Andrew; Susan Kirkland; Kenneth Rockwood; Olga Theou Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 12.782
Authors: Andria Mousa; George M Savva; Arnold Mitnitski; Kenneth Rockwood; Carol Jagger; Carol Brayne; Fiona E Matthews Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Peter Hanlon; Barbara I Nicholl; Bhautesh Dinesh Jani; Duncan Lee; Ross McQueenie; Frances S Mair Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2018-06-14