Validation of replacement questions for slowness and weakness to assess the Fried Phenotype: a cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: When screening large populations, performance-based measures can be difficult to conduct because they are time consuming and costly, and require well-trained assessors. The aim of the present study is to validate a set of questions replacing the performance-based measures slowness and weakness as part of the Fried frailty phenotype (FRIED-P). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among community-dwelling older adults (≥ 60 years) in three Flemish municipalities. The Fried Phenotype (FRIED-P) was used to measure physical frailty. The two performance-based measures of the Fried Phenotype (slowness and weakness) were also measured by means of six substituting questions (FRIED-Q). These questions were validated through sensitivity, specificity, Cohen's kappa value, observed agreement, correlation analysis, and the area under the curve (AUC, ROC curve). RESULTS: 196 older adults participated. According to the FRIED-P, 19.5% of them were frail, 56.9% were pre-frail and 23.6% were non-frail. For slowness, the observed sensitivity was 47.0%, the specificity was 96.5% and the AUC was 0.717. For weakness, the sensitivity was 46.2%, the specificity was 83.7%, and the AUC was 0.649. The overall Spearman correlation between the FRIED-P and the FRIED-Q was r = 0.721 with an observed agreement of 76.6% (weighted linear kappa value = 0.663, quadratic kappa value = 0.738). CONCLUSIONS: The concordance between the FRIED-P and FRIED-Q was substantial, characterized by a very high specificity, but a moderate sensitivity. This alternative operationalization of the Fried Phenotype-i.e., including six replacement questions instead of two performance-based tests-can be considered to apply as screening tool to screen physical frailty in large populations.

Concordances and differences between a unidimensional and multidimensional assessment of frailty: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Many instruments to identify frail older people have been developed. One of the consequences is that the prevalence rates of frailty vary widely dependent on the instrument selected. The aims of this study were 1) to examine the concordances and differences between a unidimensional and multidimensional assessment of frailty, 2) to assess to what extent the characteristics of a 'frail sample' differ depending on the selected frailty measurement because 'being frail' is used in many studies as an inclusion criterion. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 196 community-dwelling older adults (≥60 years), which were selected from the census records. Unidimensional frailty was operationalized according to the Fried Phenotype (FP) and multidimensional frailty was measured with the Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Instrument (CFAI). The concordances and differences were examined by prevalence, correlations, observed agreement and Kappa values. Differences between sample characteristics (e.g., age, physical activity, life satisfaction) were investigated with ANOVA and Kruskall-Wallis test. RESULTS: The mean age was 72.74 (SD 8.04) and 48.98% was male. According to the FP 23.59% was not-frail, 56.92% pre-frail and 19.49% frail. According to the CFAI, 44.33% was no-to-low frail, 37.63% was mild frail and 18.04% was high frail. The correlation between FP and the CFAI was r = 0.46 and the observed agreement was 52.85%. The Kappa value was κ = 0.35 (quadratic κ = 0.45). In total, 11.92% of the participants were frail according to both measurements, 7.77% was solely frail according to the FP and 6.21% was solely frail according to the CFAI. The 'frail sample respondents' according to the FP had higher levels of life satisfaction and net income, but performed less physical activities in comparison to high frail people according to the CFAI. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that the FP and CFAI partly measure the same 'frailty-construct', although differences were found for instance in the prevalence of frailty and the composition of the 'frail participants'. Since 'being frail' is an inclusion criterion in many studies, researchers must be aware that the choice of the frailty measurement has an impact on both the estimates of frailty prevalence and the characteristics of the selected sample.

The ability of four frailty screening instruments to predict mortality, hospitalization and dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living.

The aim of this study was to assess the predictive ability of the frailty phenotype (FP), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and frailty index (FI) for the outcomes mortality, hospitalization and increase in dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living ((I)ADL) among older persons. This prospective cohort study with 2-year follow-up included 2420 Dutch community-dwelling older people (65+, mean age 76.3 ± 6.6 years, 39.5% male) who were pre-frail or frail according to the FP. Mortality data were obtained from Statistics Netherlands. All other data were self-reported. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) was calculated for each frailty instrument and outcome measure. The prevalence of frailty, sensitivity and specificity were calculated using cutoff values proposed by the developers and cutoff values one above and one below the proposed ones (0.05 for FI). All frailty instruments poorly predicted mortality, hospitalization and (I)ADL dependency (AUCs between 0.62-0.65, 0.59-0.63 and 0.60-0.64, respectively). Prevalence estimates of frailty in this population varied between 22.2% (FP) and 64.8% (TFI). The FP and FI showed higher levels of specificity, whereas sensitivity was higher for the GFI and TFI. Using a different cutoff point considerably changed the prevalence, sensitivity and specificity. In conclusion, the predictive ability of the FP, GFI, TFI and FI was poor for all outcomes in a population of pre-frail and frail community-dwelling older people. The FP and the FI showed higher values of specificity, whereas sensitivity was higher for the GFI and TFI.

The impact of multidimensional frailty on dependency in activities of daily living and the moderating effects of protective factors.

BACKGROUND: Dependency in activities of daily living (ADL) might be caused by multidimensional frailty. Prevention is important as ADL dependency might threaten the ability to age in place. Therefore, this study aimed to assess whether protective factors, derived from a systematic literature review, moderate the relationship between multidimensional frailty and ADL dependency, and whether this differs across age groups. METHODS: A longitudinal study with a follow-up after 24 months was conducted among 1027 community-dwelling people aged ≥65 years. Multidimensional frailty was measured with the Tilburg Frailty Indicator, and ADL dependency with the ADL subscale from the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale. Other measures included socio-demographic characteristics and seven protective factors against ADL dependency, such as physical activity and non-smoking. Logistic regression analyses with interaction terms were conducted. RESULTS: Frail older people had a twofold risk of developing ADL dependency after 24 months in comparison to non-frail older people (OR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.45-3.00). The selected protective factors against ADL dependency did not significantly moderate this relationship. Nonetheless, higher levels of physical activity decreased the risk of becoming ADL dependent (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.46-0.98), as well as having sufficient financial resources (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.35-0.71). CONCLUSION: Multidimensional frail older people have a higher risk of developing ADL dependency. The studied protective factors against ADL dependency did not significantly moderate this relationship.

Substitution of Fried's performance-based physical frailty criteria with self-report questions.

OBJECTIVE: To identify self-report questions that can substitute Fried's performance-based frailty measures for use in large-scale studies and daily practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among community dwelling older people (65+). Based on a literature search and interviews with older people and experts, 11 questions concerning walk time and 10 on handgrip strength were selected. All participants completed these sets of self-report questions as well as the original Fried criteria (including performance-based tests). Regression analyses were performed to find the questions that best substituted the performance-based tests. RESULTS: In total, 135 individuals (mean age 73.8±7.0, 58.5% female) in different stages of frailty (non-frail 38.5%, pre-frail 40.7%, frail 20.7%) were included. Regression analyses revealed four questions for walk time and two for handgrip strength. Cut-off values of three for walk time (range 0-5) and one for handgrip strength (range 0-3) seem most optimal. This resulted in a sensitivity of 69.2%, 86.1% specificity and 79.4% agreement for walk time and a sensitivity of 73.2%, 71.3% specificity and 71.9% agreement for handgrip strength. The comparison of frailty stages using frailty criteria including the performance-based measures and scores based solely on self-report questions, resulted in an observed agreement of 71.1% (kappa value=0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the agreement between the questions and the performance-based tests, these two sets of questions might be used in settings where the performance-based tests of walk time and handgrip strength are unfeasible, such as in daily practice and large-scale research.

Can resources moderate the impact of levels of frailty on adverse outcomes among (pre-) frail older people? A longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Higher levels of frailty result in higher risks of adverse frailty outcomes such as hospitalisation and mortality. There are, however, indications that more factors than solely frailty play a role in the development of these outcomes. The presence of resources, e.g. sufficient income and good self-management abilities, might slow down the pathway from level of frailty to adverse outcomes (e.g. mortality). In the present paper we studied whether resources (i.e. educational level, income, availability of informal care, living situation, sense of mastery and self-management abilities) moderate the impact of the level of frailty on the adverse outcomes mortality, hospitalisation and the development of disability over a two-year period. METHODS: Longitudinal data on a sample of 2420 community-dwelling pre-frail and frail older people were collected. Participants filled out a questionnaire every six months, including measures of frailty, resources and outcomes. To study the moderating effects of the selected resources their interaction effects with levels of frailty on outcomes were studied by means of multiple logistics and linear regression models. RESULTS: Frail older participants had increased odds of mortality and hospitalisation, and had more deteriorating disability scores compared to their pre-frail counterparts. No moderating effects of the studied resources were found for the outcomes mortality and hospitalisation. Only for the outcome disability statistically significant moderating effects were present for the resources income and living situation, yet these effects were in the opposite direction to what we expected. Overall, the studied resources showed hardly any statistically significant moderating effects and the directions of the trends were inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Frail participants were more at risk of mortality, hospitalisation, and an increase in disability. However, we were unable to demonstrate a clear moderating effect of the studied resources on the adverse outcomes associated with frailty (among pre-frail and frail participants). More research is needed to increase insight into the role of moderating factors. Other resources or outcome measures should be considered.

Fried phenotype of frailty: cross-sectional comparison of three frailty stages on various health domains.

BACKGROUND: The population ageing in most Western countries leads to a larger number of frail older people. These frail people are at an increased risk of negative health outcomes, such as functional decline, falls, institutionalisation and mortality. Many approaches are available for identifying frailty among older people. Researchers most often use Fried and colleagues' description of the frailty phenotype. The authors describe five physical criteria. Other researchers prefer a combination of measurements in the social, psychological and/or physical domains. The aim of this study is to describe the levels of social, psychological and physical functioning according to Fried's frailty stages using a large cohort of Dutch community-dwelling older people. METHODS: There were 8,684 community-dwelling older people (65+) who participated in this cross-sectional study. Based on the five Fried frailty criteria (weight loss, exhaustion, low physical activity, slowness, weakness), the participants were divided into three stages: non-frail (score 0), pre-frail (score 1-2) and frail (score 3-5). These stages were related to scores in the social (social network type, informal care use, loneliness), psychological (psychological distress, mastery, self-management) and physical (chronic diseases, GARS IADL-disability, OECD disability) domains. RESULTS: 63.2% of the participants was non-frail, 28.1% pre-frail and 8.7% frail. When comparing the three stages of frailty, frail people appeared to be older, were more likely to be female, were more often unmarried or living alone, and had a lower level of education compared to their pre-frail and non-frail counterparts. The difference between the scores in the social, psychological and physical domains were statistically significant between the three frailty stages. The most preferable scores came from the non-frail group, and least preferable scores were from the frail group. For example use of informal care: non-frail 3.9%, pre-frail 23.8%, frail 60.6%, and GARS IADL-disability mean scores: non-frail 9.2, pre-frail 13.0, frail 19.7. CONCLUSION: When older people were categorised according to the three frailty stages, as described by Fried and colleagues, there were statistically significant differences in the level of social, psychological and physical functioning between the non-frail, pre-frail and frail persons. Non-frail participants had consistently more preferable scores compared to the frail participants. This indicated that the Fried frailty criteria could help healthcare professionals identify and treat frail older people in an efficient way, and provide indications for problems in other domains.