2015
DOI: 10.1111/ajag.12184
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How common is frailty in older Australians?

Abstract: The apparent prevalence of frailty varied when different measures were used. It is important for clinicians and researchers to be aware that different frailty measures may identify different groups of older people as frail.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
19
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
2
19
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The prevalence of frailty in women was approximately double that seen in men across all age groups, and as expected, the prevalence of frailty increased significantly with increasing age. The prevalence of frailty in this sample is substantially higher than has been reported previously in Australian studies . Frailty was significantly higher in our study for women who were divorced, widowed or never married compared to their married or de facto counterparts.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 74%
“…The prevalence of frailty in women was approximately double that seen in men across all age groups, and as expected, the prevalence of frailty increased significantly with increasing age. The prevalence of frailty in this sample is substantially higher than has been reported previously in Australian studies . Frailty was significantly higher in our study for women who were divorced, widowed or never married compared to their married or de facto counterparts.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 74%
“…Frailty prevalence (FP: 18%, FI: 48%) was substantially higher than in a previous South Australian study which measured frailty prevalence in men and women using both measures (FP: 9%, FI: 18%, mean age 78.2 (6.7) years) . In that study, exclusively self‐report FI variables and a higher cut‐point of 0.25 were used, which is likely to have contributed in part to the lower prevalence .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…Our FI used a combination of self‐report and test‐based health measures, and had a cut‐point of 0.21, as combining both forms of measurement has been identified as best predicting adverse health outcomes . Furthermore, when comparing our findings, using data from 2004 to 2006, with the findings by Widagdo et al who used data from 1992, there may be a cohort effect. The comparatively lower socioeconomic status (SES) of the NWAHS region might also have contributed to a higher frailty prevalence .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
See 2 more Smart Citations