The relation between age of retirement and frailty in later life? A cross-sectional study in Flemish older adults.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers in several European countries, concerned about the sustainability of their pension system, have raised the statutory retirement age. While several studies investigated the effect of retirement on health, the relationship between retirement and frailty is neglected. Notwithstanding, frailty is associated with adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between age of retirement and frailty in later life. METHODS: Data of the Belgian Ageing Studies, a cross-sectional research project was used. The present study includes N=12659 participants (>60y) in 83 Flemish municipalities. To address reverse causality, only participants not retired because of health-related reasons were included. The Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Instrument, a multidimensional frailty scale with four domains (physical, psychological, social and environmental) was used to operationalize frailty. Univariate general linear regression analyses (GLM) were performed for scores on the total frailty scale and the four subdomains separately. The analysis was done for men and women separately, since both groups have different labor trajectories. RESULTS: The present study found a negative association between age of retirement and physical frailty for both men and women in later life, and total frailty for men, although the differences were small. No evidence was found for a relation between age of retirement and the other subdomains of frailty. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that age of retirement is not a clinically relevant predictor for frailty in later life. Differences within and between subpopulations (e.g., profession) can shed a new light on this relation.

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 Social Environment's Relationship With Frailty: Evidence From Existing Studies.

Increasingly, policymakers assume that informal networks will provide care for frail older people. While the literature has mainly discussed the role of the family, broader social networks are also considered to be important. However, these social networks can diminish in later life. This systematic review investigates whether the social environment increases the risk of frailty or helps to prevent it. Findings from 15 original studies were classified using five different factors, which denoted five dimensions of the social environment: (a) social networks, (b) social support, (c) social participation, (d) subjective neighborhood experience, and (e) socioeconomic neighborhood characteristics. The discussion highlights that the social environment and frailty are indeed related, and how the neighborhood dimensions and social participation had more consistent results than social support and social networks. Conclusively, recommendations are formulated to contemplate all dimensions of the social environment for further research examining frailty and community care.