Prevalence and Factors Associated with Frailty and Cognitive Frailty Among Community-Dwelling Elderly with Knee Osteoarthritis

Wanaratna, Kulthanit; Muangpaisan, Weerasak; Kuptniratsaikul, Vilai; Chalermsri, Chalobol; Nuttamonwarakul, Apiwan

doi:10.1007/s10900-018-00614-5

Cited by 36 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The prevalence of other countries varies, such as 3.9% in China by using the Fried phenotype, 26% in India by using the Fried phenotype, and 51.4% in Cuba by using Cuban frailty criteria [ 38 ]. A study in Thailand showed that the prevalence of frailty was 9.4% by using the Fried phenotype in community-dwelling elderly individuals within the knee osteoarthritis population [ 3 ]. The study demonstrated that the frailty cases in the male group were lower than that in the female group in all screening tests, which is a result similar to a study in community-dwelling elderly individuals within a knee osteoarthritis population [ 3 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A study in Thailand showed that the prevalence of frailty was 9.4% by using the Fried phenotype in community-dwelling elderly individuals within the knee osteoarthritis population [ 3 ]. The study demonstrated that the frailty cases in the male group were lower than that in the female group in all screening tests, which is a result similar to a study in community-dwelling elderly individuals within a knee osteoarthritis population [ 3 ]. A study in community-dwelling elderly individuals in Japan demonstrated sex-related differences associated with dietary consumption.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The questionnaires were administered by physicians specializing in internal medicine. The total physical activity (kcal/week) was calculated by using the metabolic equivalent (MET) score as following heavy exercise = 8 MET, moderate exercise = 4 MET, walk = 3.3 MET, sitting = 1 MET [ 1 , 3 , 29 , 30 ].

…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…as fulfilling 3 out of the 5 phenotypic criteria that indicate compromised energetics: weakness, slowness, low level of physical activity, self-reported exhaustion, and unintentional weight loss [ 1 ]. The CHS criteria are used worldwide for screening frailty and as a reference standard by many researchers [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. However, the CHS criteria have a limitation in cases of limited time because the CHS has to evaluate the 5 criteria and take time for each criterion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of geriatric assessment tools for frailty among community elderly

Sukkriang

Punsawad

2020

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Frailty is an important condition in elderly individuals because it increases disability, morbidity, and mortality. The definition frailty from the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) criteria is used worldwide and defined as fulfilling 3 out of the 5 phenotypic criteria that indicate compromised energetics: weakness, slowness, low level of physical activity, self-reported exhaustion, and unintentional weight loss. Objective This research aims to study the validity of 5 screening methods, e.g., Clinical Frailty Scale, simple FRAIL questionnaire, PRISMA-7 questionnaire, Time Up and Go Test (TUG), and Gérontopôle frailty screening tool (GFST), and compare those results with the definition of frailty by using the CHS criteria for screening frailty. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study. The sample was 214 elderly individuals, aged ≥60 years, and living in the community. We used 5 screening tests and the Fried phenotype (CHS criteria) as a reference standard. Analysis of the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR+, LR-, and accuracy of each screening was compared with the Fried phenotype (CHS criteria). Results The prevalence of frailty of elderly individuals in the community was 11.7% when using the Fried phenotype (CHS criteria). The Clinical Frailty Scale has sensitivity 56%, specificity 98.41%, PPV 82.35%, NPV 94.42%, LR+ 35.28, LR- 0.45, and accuracy 93.46%. The simple FRAIL questionnaire has sensitivity 88%, specificity 85.71%, PPV 44.90%, NPV 98.18%, LR+ 6.61, LR- 0.14, and accuracy 85.98%. The PRISMA-7 questionnaire has sensitivity 76%, specificity 86.24%, PPV 42.22%, NPV 96.45%, LR+ 5.52, LR- 0.28, and accuracy 85.05%. TUG has sensitivity 72%, specificity 82.54%, PPV 35.29%, NPV 95.71%, LR+ 4.12, LR- 0.34, and accuracy 81.31%. The GFST has sensitivity 88%, specificity 83.56%, PPV 41.51%, NPV 98.14%, LR+ 5.37, LR- 0.14, and accuracy 84.11%. Conclusions The simple FRAIL questionnaire and GFST have the highest sensitivity compared with the CHS criteria. All screening tests in this study have an accuracy of more than 80% compared with the CHS criteria.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of geriatric assessment tools for frailty among community elderly

Sukkriang

Punsawad

2020

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A participant answer of “low” was interpreted as low physical activity. A previous investigation of this method among older Thais revealed a high correlation with the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (kappa 0.721)[ 21 ]. Weakness.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prevalence of cognitive frailty and pre-frailty among older people in Bangkok metropolitan area: a multicenter study of hospital-based outpatient clinics

Wongtrakulruang

Muangpaisan

Panpradup

et al. 2020

JFSF

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To identify the prevalence of, and factors associated with, cognitive frailty and prefrailty, and to investigate correlation between frailty tools. Methods: One hundred and ninety five older adults were recruited from the medical outpatient clinics of 3 tertiary hospitals in Bangkok metropolitan region. The data collected were demographic information, lifestyle factors, functional status, mood assessment, and cognitive and frailty assessments. The frailty tools used were Frailty Phenotype and FRAIL scale. Results: The prevalence of pre-frailty, frailty, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), cognitive pre-frailty and cognitive frailty was 57.4%, 15.9%, 26.2%, 14.4% and 6.7%, respectively. A multivariate analysis showed that age ≥70 years (OR 5.34; 95% CI 2.06-12.63), and education at primary school or under (OR 4.18; 95% CI 1.61-10.82) were associated with cognitive frailty and cognitive pre-frailty. The correlation between physical frailty rated by the Modified Fried Frailty Phenotype and the FRAIL scale was good (Kappa coefficient = 0.741). Conclusions: The prevalence of cognitive frailty is not uncommon which requires screening and interventions. Age and a low educational level were related to cognitive frailty/prefrailty. The FRAIL scale yielded a high correlation with Frailty phenotypes, implying its benefit in routine clinical use in primary care practice, where there is limited time and resources.

show abstract