Associations between frailty syndrome and sociodemographic characteristics in long-lived individuals of a community.
Clóris Regina Blanski Grden, Maria Helena Lenardt, Jacy Aurelia Vieira de Sousa and 3 others
PMID 28591295WHAT IT FOUND
Among 243 community-dwelling adults 80+, 36 were frail, 155 were pre-frail and 52 were not frail.
Age was linked to frailty, but the predictive models were not supported.
Key findings
01Among 243 community-dwelling adults aged 80 or more, 36 (14.8%) were frail, 155 (63.8%) were pre-frail, and 52 (21.4%) were not frail.
02Age showed a significant association with frailty (p=0.0432), while gender, marital status, education, household situation, financial situation, individual income and family income did not.
03The paper reports no significant associations between the predictive logistic models.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was cross-sectional, so it cannot show that age or living situation causes frailty. Participants were drawn from three health units in one Brazilian city, so results may not apply elsewhere. Fifteen people unable to perform physical tests and one person on chemotherapy were excluded, so the findings do not cover people who could not perform the tests. Family caregivers answered for 36 participants who could not answer themselves, which may affect self-reported fatigue or weight loss. The chosen prediction model was not significant overall (p=0.075).
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the chosen prediction model as a clinical screening tool. Model 1 had p=0.075, and the paper reports no significant associations between the predictive models.