Mark Q Thompson1,2, Olga Theou1,2,3, Solomon Yu1,2, Robert J Adams4, Graeme R Tucker1, Renuka Visvanathan1,2. 1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre of Research Excellence: Frailty and Healthy Ageing, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 2. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Adelaide Geriatrics Training and Research with Aged Care (G-TRAC) Centre, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 3. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 4. The Health Observatory, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of frailty and associated factors in the North West Adelaide Health Study (2004-2006) using the Frailty Phenotype (FP) and Frailty Index (FI). METHODS: Frailty was measured in 909 community-dwelling participants aged ≥65 years using the FP and FI. RESULTS: The FP classified 18% of participants as frail and the FI 48%. The measures were strongly correlated (r = 0.76, P < 0.001) and had a kappa agreement of 0.38 for frailty classification, with 37% of participants classified as non-frail by the FP being classified as frail by the FI. Being older, a current smoker, and having multimorbidity and polypharmacy were associated with higher frailty levels by both tools. Female, low income, obesity and living alone were associated with the FI. CONCLUSION: Frailty prevalence was higher when assessed using the FI. Socioeconomic factors and other health determinants contribute to higher frailty levels.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of frailty and associated factors in the North West Adelaide Health Study (2004-2006) using the Frailty Phenotype (FP) and Frailty Index (FI). METHODS: Frailty was measured in 909 community-dwelling participants aged ≥65 years using the FP and FI. RESULTS: The FP classified 18% of participants as frail and the FI 48%. The measures were strongly correlated (r = 0.76, P < 0.001) and had a kappa agreement of 0.38 for frailty classification, with 37% of participants classified as non-frail by the FP being classified as frail by the FI. Being older, a current smoker, and having multimorbidity and polypharmacy were associated with higher frailty levels by both tools. Female, low income, obesity and living alone were associated with the FI. CONCLUSION: Frailty prevalence was higher when assessed using the FI. Socioeconomic factors and other health determinants contribute to higher frailty levels.