Aim
To compare the 5-item K-FRAIL questionnaire (Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses, and Loss of weight) vs. the 28-item Kihon+3 index (the 25-item original Kihon checklist plus multimorbidity, sensory impairment, and Timed-Up-and-Go test) in identifying prefrail or frail older adults.
Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 212 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 76 years; 41% male) in PyeongChang County, Korea. We compared C statistic, sensitivity, and specificity of the K-FRAIL questionnaire (range: 0–5; cutpoint ≥1) vs. the Kihon+3 index (range: 0–31; cutpoint ≥4) and the original Kihon checklist (range: 0–25; cutpoint ≥4) in identifying prefrail or frail individuals according to the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) criteria.
Results
According to the CHS criteria, 150 individuals (70.8%) were prefrail or frail. The C statistic of the K-FRAIL questionnaire in identifying prefrail or frail individuals was lower than that of the Kihon+3 index (0.77 vs. 0.85; p=0.022) or that of the original Kihon checklist (0.77 vs. 0.84; p=0.046). However, at the a priori cutpoints, the K-FRAIL questionnaire had sensitivity (0.79 vs. 0.85; p=0.095) and specificity (0.69 vs. 0.69; p=1.000) that were not significantly different from those of the Kihon+3 index. However, the K-FRAIL questionnaire was more sensitive (0.79 vs. 0.69; p=0.016), but less specific (0.69 vs. 0.86, p=0.018) than the original Kihon checklist.
Conclusions
For frailty screening in community-dwelling older adults, the simple K-FRAIL questionnaire may not be inferior to the current standard of the Kihon+3 index, and it may be more sensitive and less specific than the original Kihon checklist.