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.

BackgroundMost older people wish to age in place, for which functional status or being able to perform activities of daily living (ADLs) is an important precondition. However, along with the substantial growth of the (oldest) old, the number of people who develop limitations in ADLs or have functional decline dramatically increases in this part of the population. Therefore, it is important to gain insight into factors that can contribute to developing intervention strategies at older ages. As a first step, this systematic review was conducted to identify risk and protective factors as predictors for developing limitations in ADLs in community-dwelling people aged 75 and over.MethodsFour electronic databases (CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE, PsycINFO and PubMed) were searched systematically for potentially relevant studies published between January 1998 and March 2016.ResultsAfter a careful selection process, 6,910 studies were identified and 25 were included. By far most factors were examined in one study only, and most were considered risk factors. Several factors do not seem to be able to predict the development of limitations in ADLs in people aged 75 years and over, and for some factors ambiguous associations were found. The following risk factors were found in at least two studies: higher age, female gender, diabetes, hypertension, and stroke. A high level of physical activity and being married were protective in multiple studies. Notwithstanding the fact that research in people aged 65 years and over is more extensive, risk and protective factors seem to differ between the ‘younger’ and ‘older’ olds.ConclusionOnly a few risk and protective factors in community-dwelling people aged 75 years and over have been analysed in multiple studies. However, the identified factors could serve both detection and prevention purposes, and implications for future research are given as well.

BackgroundThe debate on frailty in later life focuses primarily on deficits and their associations with adverse (health) outcomes. In addition to deficits, it may also be important to consider the abilities and resources of older adults. This study was designed to gain insights into the lived experiences of frailty among older adults to determine which strengths can balance the deficits that affect frailty.MethodsData from 121 potentially frail community-dwelling older adults in Flemish-speaking Region of Belgium and Brussels were collected using a mixed-methods approach. Quantitative data were collected using the Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Instrument (CFAI), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and numeric rating scales (NRS) for quality of life (QoL), care and support, meaning in life, and mastery. Bivariate analyses, paired samples t-tests and means were performed. Qualitative data on experiences of frailty, frailty balance, QoL, care and support, meaning in life, and mastery were collected using semi-structured interviews. Interviews were subjected to thematic content analysis.ResultsThe “no to mild frailty” group had higher QoL, care and support, meaning in life, and mastery scores than the “severe frailty” group. Nevertheless, qualitative results indicate that, despite being classified as frail, many older adults experienced high levels of QoL, care and support, meaning in life, and mastery. Respondents mentioned multiple balancing factors for frailty, comprising individual-level circumstances (e.g., personality traits, coping strategies, resilience), environmental influences (e.g., caregivers, neighborhood, social participation), and macro-level features (e.g., health literacy, adequate financial compensation). Respondents also highlighted that life changes affected their frailty balance, including changes in health, finances, personal relationships, and living situation.ConclusionThe findings indicate that frailty among older individuals can be considered as a dynamic state and, regardless of frailty, balancing factors are important in maintaining a good QoL. The study investigated not only the deficits, but also the abilities, and resources of frail, older adults. Public policymakers and healthcare organizations are encouraged to include these abilities, supplementary or even complementary to the usual focus on deficits.

Background: Understanding the characteristics related to frailty transitions will allow for better future health practice and healthcare strategies. We evaluated the changes in frailty among communitydwelling older adults and to examine the predictors of the changes in frailty. Methods: A total of 4050 community residents aged ≥ 60 years were recruited in 2015 with follow-up after 2 years. At baseline, a multiple deficits approach was used to construct the Frailty Index (FI) according to the methodology of FI construction, and sociodemographic characteristics and lifestyles were also collected. The transitions in frailty between baseline and 2-year follow-up were evaluated. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to examine associations between predictors and the changes of frailty, adjusting for all of the covariates. Results: Of all of the 3988 participants at baseline, those with frailty status of robust, prefrail, and frail were 79.5%, 16.4%, and 4.1%, and these changed to 68.2%, 23.0%, and 8.8% after 2 years with 127 deceased and 23 dropped out. Twelve kinds of transitions from baseline of the three frailty statuses to four outcomes at follow-up (including death) significantly

This paper elaborates on practical implications, and formulates a number of future research recommendations to tackle frailty in an aging society. The conclusion demonstrates the necessity for a thorough knowledge of risk profiles of frailty, as this will save both time and money and permit preventive actions to be more individually tailored.