Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Mar 25;12(1):172.
doi: 10.1186/s13104-019-4206-3.

A proposal for a self-rated frailty index and status for patient-oriented research

Yi-Sheng Chao  1 , Danielle McGolrick  1 , Chao-Jung Wu  2 , Hsing-Chien Wu  3 , Wei-Chih Chen  4   5
Affiliations

A proposal for a self-rated frailty index and status for patient-oriented research

Yi-Sheng Chao et al. BMC Res Notes. .

Abstract

Objective: Frailty indices are important predictors of major health outcomes, but mostly designed by and for researchers and specialists. Three of the most commonly used theory-based indices are composite measures that are subject to arbitrary assumptions and biases introduced due to data processing. A complicated index can be simplified with fewer items. The theory-based frailty indices are not optimal and neglect patients' perspectives. This study aims to compare different definitions of frailty and propose a self-rated measure of frailty index and status.

Results: Frailty was defined differently by laypeople and researchers/clinicians. Patients' and laypeople's perspectives seemed neglected. Existing frailty indices had shortcomings related to the use of composite measures, assumptions of frailty theories, and the lack of novel information. To avoid these shortcomings, we suggested asking individuals "on a scale of 0 to 10, how frail do you think you are?" and "by answering yes or no, do you consider yourself to be frail?" to determine frailty on continuous and dichotomous scales respectively. However, there will be other issues emerging with these new measures, such as the need for feasibility and validity studies, as well as acceptability by researchers.

Keywords: Accumulation of Deficits Model; Frailty; Frailty index; Frailty status; Phenotype Model; Self-rated frailty measure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Proposed patient-oriented frailty scales. Asterisk: the definition of frailty needs to be clarified and should be understood by the interviewees
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Chao Y-S, Wu H-C, Wu C-J, Chen W-C. Index or illusion: the case of frailty indices in the Health and Retirement Study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(7):e0197859. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197859. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cigolle CT, Ofstedal MB, Tian Z, Blaum CS. Comparing models of frailty: the Health and Retirement Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(5):830–839. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02225.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. National Institute on Ageing. We can’t address what we don’t measure consistently. Building consensus on frailty in Canada. Toronto: National Institute on Ageing; 2018. https://www.ryerson.ca/nia/white-papers/frailty-paper.pdf.
    1. Vetrano DL, Palmer K, Marengoni A, Marzetti E, Lattanzio F, Roller-Wirnsberger R, et al. Frailty and multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gerontol A. 2018 doi: 10.1093/gerona/gly110. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A. 2001;56(3):M146–M157. doi: 10.1093/gerona/56.3.M146. - DOI - PubMed