Operationalization of Frailty Using Eight Commonly Used Scales and Comparison of Their Ability to Predict All-Cause Mortality

被引:487
作者
Theou, Olga [1 ]
Brothers, Thomas D. [1 ]
Mitnitski, Arnold [1 ]
Rockwood, Kenneth [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Dalhousie Univ, Halifax, NS B3H 2E1, Canada
[2] Capital Dist Hlth Author, QEII Hlth Sci Ctr, Ctr Hlth Care Elderly, Halifax, NS, Canada
关键词
aging; prognosis; frail older adults; Europe; health status indicators; OLDER-ADULTS; PRIMARY-CARE; HEALTH; PEOPLE; INDEX; IDENTIFICATION; INSTRUMENTS; INDICATOR; VALIDITY; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1111/jgs.12420
中图分类号
R592 [老年病学]; C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 100203 ;
摘要
Objectives To operationalize frailty using eight scales and to compare their content validity, feasibility, prevalence estimates of frailty, and ability to predict all-cause mortality. Design Secondary analysis of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Setting Eleven European countries. Participants Individuals aged 50 to 104 (mean age 65.3 +/- 10.5, 54.8% female, N = 27,527). Measurements Frailty was operationalized using SHARE data based on the Groningen Frailty Indicator, the Tilburg Frailty Indicator, a 70-item Frailty Index (FI), a 44-item FI based on a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (FI-CGA), the Clinical Frailty Scale, frailty phenotype (weighted and unweighted versions), the Edmonton Frail Scale, and the FRAIL scale. Results All scales had fewer than 6% of cases with at least one missing item, except the SHARE-frailty phenotype (11.1%) and the SHARE-Tilburg (12.2%). In the SHARE-Groningen, SHARE-Tilburg, SHARE-frailty phenotype, and SHARE-FRAIL scales, death rates were 3 to 5 times as high in excluded cases as in included ones. Frailty prevalence estimates ranged from 6% (SHARE-FRAIL) to 44% (SHARE-Groningen). All scales categorized 2.4% of participants as frail. Of unweighted scales, the SHARE-FI and SHARE-Edmonton scales most accurately predicted mortality at 2 (SHARE-FI area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.75-0.79); SHARE-Edmonton AUC = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.74-0.79) and 5 (both AUC = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.74-0.77) years. The continuous score of the weighted SHARE-frailty phenotype (AUC = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.75-0.78) predicted 5-year mortality better than the unweighted SHARE-frailty phenotype (AUC = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.68-0.71), but the categorical score of the weighted SHARE-frailty phenotype did not (AUC = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.68-0.72). Conclusion Substantive differences exist between scales in their content validity, feasibility, and ability to predict all-cause mortality. These frailty scales capture related but distinct groups. Weighting items in frailty scales can improve their predictive ability, but the trade-off between specificity, predictive power, and generalizability requires additional evaluation.
引用
收藏
页码:1537 / 1551
页数:15
相关论文
共 54 条
  • [51] Frailty: Toward a clinical definition
    van Kan, Gabor Abellan
    Rolland, Yves M.
    Morley, John E.
    Vellas, Bruno
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION, 2008, 9 (02) : 71 - 72
  • [52] Biodemography of human ageing
    Vaupel, James W.
    [J]. NATURE, 2010, 464 (7288) : 536 - 542
  • [53] Comparison of Frailty Indicators Based on Clinical Phenotype and the Multiple Deficit Approach in Predicting Mortality and Physical Limitation
    Woo, Jean
    Leung, Jason
    Morley, John E.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, 2012, 60 (08) : 1478 - 1486
  • [54] World Health Organization Programme on Mental Health, 1996, WHOQOL BREF INTR ADM