Dataset Information

Identifying frailty: do the Frailty Index and Groningen Frailty Indicator cover different clinical perspectives? a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Early identification of frailty is important for proactive primary care. Currently, however, there is no consensus on which measure to use. Therefore, we examined whether a Frailty Index (FI), based on ICPC-coded primary care data, and the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) questionnaire identify the same older people as frail.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional, observational study of 1,580 patients aged ??60 years in a Dutch primary care center. Patients received a GFI questionnaire and were surveyed on their baseline characteristics. Frailty-screening software calculated their FI score. The GFI and FI scores were compared as continuous and dichotomised measures.

Results

FI data were available for 1549 patients (98%). 663 patients (42%) returned their GFI questionnaire. Complete GFI and FI scores were available for 638 patients (40.4%), mean age 73.4 years, 52.8% female. There was a positive correlation between the GFI and the FI (Pearson's correlation coefficient 0.544). Using dichotomised scores, 84.3% of patients with a low FI score also had a low GFI score. In patients with a high FI score, 55.1% also had a high GFI score. A continuous FI score accurately predicted a dichotomised GFI score (AUC 0.78, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82). Being widowed or divorced was an independent predictor of both a high GFI score in patients with a low FI score, and a high FI score in patients with a low GFI score.

Conclusions

The FI and the GFI moderately overlap in identifying frailty in community-dwelling older patients. To provide optimal proactive primary care, we suggest an initial FI screening in routine healthcare data, followed by a GFI questionnaire for patients with a high FI score or otherwise at high risk as the preferred two-step frailty screening process in primary care.

SUBMITTER: Drubbel I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3665587 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Identifying frailty: do the Frailty Index and Groningen Frailty Indicator cover different clinical perspectives? a cross-sectional study.

Drubbel Irene I Bleijenberg Nienke N Kranenburg Guido G Eijkemans René J C RJ Schuurmans Marieke J MJ de Wit Niek J NJ Numans Mattijs E ME

BMC family practice 20130521

<h4>Background</h4>Early identification of frailty is important for proactive primary care. Currently, however, there is no consensus on which measure to use. Therefore, we examined whether a Frailty Index (FI), based on ICPC-coded primary care data, and the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) questionnaire identify the same older people as frail.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a cross-sectional, observational study of 1,580 patients aged ≥ 60 years in a Dutch primary care center. Patients received a ...[more]

PMID: 23692735

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDue to the rapidly increasing number of older people worldwide, the prevalence of frailty among older adults is expected to escalate in coming decades. It is crucial to recognize early onset symptoms to initiate specific preventive care. Therefore, early detection of frailty with appropriate screening instruments is needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the underlying dimensionality of the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), a widely used self-report screening instrument for identifying frail older adults. In addition, criterion validity of GFI subscales was examined and composition of GFI scores was evaluated.MethodsA cross-sectional study design was used to evaluate the structural validity, internal consistency and criterion validity of the GFI questionnaire in older adults aged 65 years and older. All subjects completed the GFI questionnaire (n = 1508). To assess criterion validity, a smaller sample of 119 older adults completed additional questionnaires: De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, RAND-36 physical functioning, and perceived general health item of the EuroQol-5D. Exploratory factor analysis and Mokken scale analysis were used to evaluate the structural validity of the GFI. A Venn diagram was constructed to show the composition of GFI subscale scores for frail subjects.ResultsThe factor structure of the GFI supported a three-dimensional structure of the scale. The subscales Daily Activities and Psychosocial Functioning showed good internal consistency, scalability, and criterion validity (Daily Activities: Cronbach's ? = 0.81, H(s) = .84, r = -.62; Psychosocial Functioning: Cronbach's ? = 0.80, H(s) = .35, r = -.48). The subscale Health Problems showed less strong internal consistency but acceptable scalability and criterion validity (Cronbach's ? = .57, H(s) = .35, r = -.48). The present data suggest that 90% of the frail older adults experience problems in the Psychosocial Functioning domain.ConclusionsThe present findings support a three-dimensional factor structure of the GFI, suggesting that a multidimensional assessment of frailty with the GFI is possible. These GFI subscale scores produce a richer assessment of frailty than with a single overall sum GFI score, and likely their use will contribute to more directed and customized care for older adults.

Dataset Information

Identifying frailty: do the Frailty Index and Groningen Frailty Indicator cover different clinical perspectives? a cross-sectional study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Identifying frailty: do the Frailty Index and Groningen Frailty Indicator cover different clinical perspectives? a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets