Multidimensional frailty and its determinants among acutely admitted older people: a cross-sectional study using the Til
- PDF / 777,374 Bytes
- 10 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 98 Downloads / 224 Views
RESEARCH PAPER
Multidimensional frailty and its determinants among acutely admitted older people: a cross‑sectional study using the Tilburg Frailty Indicator Robbert J. J. Gobbens1,2,3 · Jane Andreasen4,5 Received: 13 May 2020 / Accepted: 26 August 2020 © European Geriatric Medicine Society 2020
Key summary points Aim The aim of this study was to establish which determinants had an effect on frailty among acutely admitted patients, where frailty was identified at discharge. Findings Sociodemographic characteristics (sex, age, marital status, education, income), lifestyle, life events, and multimorbidity had a different effect on total frailty and its domains (physical, psychological, social). Message The findings support healthcare professionals in detecting frail older people, so early intervention with the aim of postponing frailty and maintaining or improving quality of life is possible. Abstract Purpose This study aimed to establish which determinants had an effect on frailty among acutely admitted patients, where frailty was identified at discharge. In particular, our study focused on associations of sex with frailty. Methods A cross-sectional study was designed using a sample of 1267 people aged 65 years or older. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), a user-friendly self-report questionnaire was used to measure multidimensional frailty (physical, psychological, social) and determinants of frailty (sex, age, marital status, education, income, lifestyle, life events, multimorbidity). Results The mean age of the participants was 76.8 years (SD 7.5; range 65–100). The bivariate regression analyses showed that all determinants were associated with total and physical frailty, and six determinants were associated with psychological and social frailty. Using multiple linear regression analyses, the explained variances differed from 3.5% (psychological frailty) to 20.1% (social frailty), with p values
Data Loading...
