+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Identifying frailty: do the Frailty Index and Groningen Frailty Indicator cover different clinical perspectives? a cross-sectional study



Identifying frailty: do the Frailty Index and Groningen Frailty Indicator cover different clinical perspectives? a cross-sectional study



Bmc Family Practice 14: 64



Early identification of frailty is important for proactive primary care. Currently, however, there is no consensus on which measure to use. Therefore, we examined whether a Frailty Index (FI), based on ICPC-coded primary care data, and the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) questionnaire identify the same older people as frail. We conducted a cross-sectional, observational study of 1,580 patients aged ≥ 60 years in a Dutch primary care center. Patients received a GFI questionnaire and were surveyed on their baseline characteristics. Frailty-screening software calculated their FI score. The GFI and FI scores were compared as continuous and dichotomised measures. FI data were available for 1549 patients (98%). 663 patients (42%) returned their GFI questionnaire. Complete GFI and FI scores were available for 638 patients (40.4%), mean age 73.4 years, 52.8% female. There was a positive correlation between the GFI and the FI (Pearson's correlation coefficient 0.544). Using dichotomised scores, 84.3% of patients with a low FI score also had a low GFI score. In patients with a high FI score, 55.1% also had a high GFI score. A continuous FI score accurately predicted a dichotomised GFI score (AUC 0.78, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82). Being widowed or divorced was an independent predictor of both a high GFI score in patients with a low FI score, and a high FI score in patients with a low GFI score. The FI and the GFI moderately overlap in identifying frailty in community-dwelling older patients. To provide optimal proactive primary care, we suggest an initial FI screening in routine healthcare data, followed by a GFI questionnaire for patients with a high FI score or otherwise at high risk as the preferred two-step frailty screening process in primary care.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 053675254

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23692735

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-14-64


Related references

German translation, cross-cultural adaptation and diagnostic test accuracy of three frailty screening tools : PRISMA-7, FRAIL scale and Groningen Frailty Indicator. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie 51(3): 282-292, 2017

Frailty in end-stage hip or knee osteoarthritis: validation of the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) questionnaire. Rheumatology International 38(5): 917-924, 2017

Evaluation of the Groningen Frailty Indicator and the G8 questionnaire as screening tools for frailty in older patients with cancer. Journal of Geriatric Oncology 4(1): 32-38, 2014

Frailty prevalence and factors associated with the Frailty Phenotype and Frailty Index: Findings from the North West Adelaide Health Study. Australasian Journal on Ageing 37(2): 120-126, 2017

Diagnostic Test of a Scoring System for Frailty Syndrome in the Elderly According to Cardiovascular Health Study, Study of Osteoporotic Fracture and Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment Based Frailty Index Compared with Frailty Index 40 Items. Acta Medica Indonesiana 47(3): 183-187, 2016

Large retrospective analysis on frailty assessment in primary care: electronic Frailty Index versus frailty coding. Bmj Health and Care Informatics 26(1): 0, 2019

Comparing Approaches to Measure Frailty in Medicare Data: Deficit-Accumulation Frailty Index Versus Phenotypic Frailty. Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 73(7): 989-990, 2018

Components of the Frailty Phenotype in Relation to the Frailty Index: Results From the Toulouse Frailty Platform. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 16(10): 855-859, 2016

Diagnostic test accuracy of self-reported frailty screening instruments in identifying community-dwelling older people at risk of frailty and pre-frailty: a systematic review protocol. Jbi Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports 15(10): 2464-2468, 2018

Fried phenotype of frailty: cross-sectional comparison of three frailty stages on various health domains. Bmc Geriatrics 15: 77, 2016

Association Between Frailty and Cognitive Impairment: Cross-Sectional Data From Toulouse Frailty Day Hospital. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 18(11): 990.E1-990.E5, 2017

Perceived frailty and measured frailty among adults undergoing hemodialysis: a cross-sectional analysis. Bmc Geriatrics 15: 52, 2016

Frailty in men living with HIV: a cross-sectional comparison of three frailty instruments. Antiviral Therapy 23(2): 117-127, 2017

Cross-cultural adaptation and reliability testing of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator for optimizing care of Polish patients with frailty syndrome. Clinical Interventions in Aging 9: 997-1001, 2015

An important problem in an aging country: identifying the frailty via 9 Point Clinical Frailty Scale. Acta Clinica Belgica 2019: 1-5, 2019