Frail Elders in an Urban District Setting in Malaysia

Abstract

In the past decade, the population in Malaysia has been rapidly ageing. This poses new challenges and issues that threaten the ability of the elderly to independently age in place. A multistage cross-sectional study on 789 community-dwelling elderly individuals aged 60 years and above was conducted in an urban district in Malaysia to assess the geriatric syndrome of frailty. Using a multidimensional frailty index, we detected 67.7% prefrail and 5.7% frail elders. Cognitive status was a significant correlate for frailty status among the respondents as well as those who perceived their health status as very poor or quite poor; but self-rated health was no longer significant when controlled for sociodemographic variables. Lower-body weakness and history of falls were associated with increasing frailty levels, and this association persisted in the multivariate model. This study offers support that physical disability, falls, and cognition are important determinants for frailty. This initial work on frailty among urban elders in Malaysia provides important correlations and identifies potential risk factors that can form the basis of information for targeted preventive measures for this vulnerable group in their prefrail state.

Association of Socio-Demographic, Psychosocial and Functional Factors with Frailty Syndrome among Community-Dwelling Elderly in Kuala Nerus, Terengganu

“…In this study, the prevalence of frailty syndrome among the Malay community-dwelling elderly in the area of Kuala Nerus, Terengganu was 18.3%, based on Fried's criteria. This finding was quite higher than the previous local study (Sathasivam et al, 2015) where the prevalence found was 5.7% using the Frailty Index among 789 urban community-dwelling elderlies aged 60 years and above in Malaysia. This range might be due to the difference of frailty definition, measurement instruments, and the criteria used (Sathasivam et al, 2015), which this study used Frailty Phenotype to define frailty syndrome.…”

“…This finding was quite higher than the previous local study (Sathasivam et al, 2015) where the prevalence found was 5.7% using the Frailty Index among 789 urban community-dwelling elderlies aged 60 years and above in Malaysia. This range might be due to the difference of frailty definition, measurement instruments, and the criteria used (Sathasivam et al, 2015), which this study used Frailty Phenotype to define frailty syndrome. Meanwhile, it would be consistent with the previous study that found the prevalence of frailty is 15.2% in people of 60 years of age and older in the rural areas in Colombia.…”

“…Consistent with this study (Sourial et al, 2013), a positive correlation was also found between the presence of frailty deficits and the presence of disability. The limitations for social contact, such as fewer interactions with family and friends outside the home and the limitations of social activities are linked with the lower functional factors (Sathasivam et al, 2015).In the present study, the cognitive function was not associated with frailty syndrome. Study (Robertson et al, 2014) on the cognitive domains reported that not all cognitive domains may become impaired simultaneously but may become dependent on the age and if the frailty indicators are present.…”

Prevalence, transitions and factors predicting transition between frailty states among rural community-dwelling older adults in Malaysia

“…Despite the growing attention, evidence on frailty in Malaysia is scarce and limited. One study reported a 5.7% prevalence of frailty in Malaysia using the multidimensional approach [ 18 ], while another study using Fried’s phenotype reported an 8.9% prevalence [ 19 ].…”

Non-frail elderly people and their license to drive motor vehicles

“…Cross-sectional research in an urban district of Malaysia evaluated the frailty syndrome in 789 elderly people (age ≥60 years old), living in the community. Those classified as non-frail were 26.6% (18) . In the US, the multicentre longitudinal population study with 7,439 elderly found 39.2% non-frail people.…”