↓ Skip to main content

Fried phenotype of frailty: cross-sectional comparison of three frailty stages on various health domains

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
321 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Fried phenotype of frailty: cross-sectional comparison of three frailty stages on various health domains
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12877-015-0078-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linda P. M. Op het Veld, Erik van Rossum, Gertrudis I. J. M. Kempen, Henrica C. W. de Vet, KlaasJan Hajema, Anna J. H. M. Beurskens

Abstract

The population ageing in most Western countries leads to a larger number of frail older people. These frail people are at an increased risk of negative health outcomes, such as functional decline, falls, institutionalisation and mortality. Many approaches are available for identifying frailty among older people. Researchers most often use Fried and colleagues' description of the frailty phenotype. The authors describe five physical criteria. Other researchers prefer a combination of measurements in the social, psychological and/or physical domains. The aim of this study is to describe the levels of social, psychological and physical functioning according to Fried's frailty stages using a large cohort of Dutch community-dwelling older people. There were 8,684 community-dwelling older people (65+) who participated in this cross-sectional study. Based on the five Fried frailty criteria (weight loss, exhaustion, low physical activity, slowness, weakness), the participants were divided into three stages: non-frail (score 0), pre-frail (score 1-2) and frail (score 3-5). These stages were related to scores in the social (social network type, informal care use, loneliness), psychological (psychological distress, mastery, self-management) and physical (chronic diseases, GARS IADL-disability, OECD disability) domains. 63.2 % of the participants was non-frail, 28.1 % pre-frail and 8.7 % frail. When comparing the three stages of frailty, frail people appeared to be older, were more likely to be female, were more often unmarried or living alone, and had a lower level of education compared to their pre-frail and non-frail counterparts. The difference between the scores in the social, psychological and physical domains were statistically significant between the three frailty stages. The most preferable scores came from the non-frail group, and least preferable scores were from the frail group. For example use of informal care: non-frail 3.9 %, pre-frail 23.8 %, frail 60.6 %, and GARS IADL-disability mean scores: non-frail 9.2, pre-frail 13.0, frail 19.7. When older people were categorised according to the three frailty stages, as described by Fried and colleagues, there were statistically significant differences in the level of social, psychological and physical functioning between the non-frail, pre-frail and frail persons. Non-frail participants had consistently more preferable scores compared to the frail participants. This indicated that the Fried frailty criteria could help healthcare professionals identify and treat frail older people in an efficient way, and provide indications for problems in other domains.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 321 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 317 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 12%
Student > Bachelor 36 11%
Researcher 34 11%
Student > Postgraduate 22 7%
Other 67 21%
Unknown 71 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 91 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 64 20%
Social Sciences 23 7%
Psychology 12 4%
Sports and Recreations 11 3%
Other 37 12%
Unknown 83 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2022.
All research outputs
#748,579
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#87
of 3,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,693
of 262,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#2
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.