What Is Frailty? Perspectives from Chinese Clinicians and Older Immigrants in New Zealand

Abstract

This qualitative study explores the meanings of frailty held by Chinese New Zealanders and Chinese health care professionals with the aim of identifying commonalities as well as potential differences. Two guided focus groups with Mandarin and Cantonese speaking older adults (n = 10), one individual interview with a English speaking older Chinese, and one focus group with Chinese New Zealand health care professionals (n = 7) were held to obtain views on frailty in older adults, followed by transcribing and a thematic qualitative analysis. Three main themes emerged: (1) Frailty is marked by ill-health, multiple chronic and unstable medical comorbidities, and is a linked with polypharmacy; (2) Frailty can involve physical weakness, decline in physical function such as reduced mobility or poor balance, and declining cognitive function; and (3) Frailty is associated with psychological and social health including depression, reduced motivation, social isolation, and loss of confidence. The perspectives of frailty that emerged are congruent with a multi-dimensional concept of frailty that has been described in both Chinese and non-Chinese medical research literature.

Older persons' experiences of frailty: A systematic review

“…This evidence acknowledges frailty as more than a physical phenomenon and elucidates a broader and alternative view that includes psychological and social dimensions informed by research that explores the perspectives of older persons (Archibald et al., 2020; BritainThinks, 2015; Chenhuichen et al., 2024; Escourrou et al., 2019; Gobbens et al., 2010; IPSOS MORI, 2014; Lim et al., 2023; Nicholson et al., 2012; Pan et al., 2019; Puts et al., 2009; Waldron, 2018; Warmoth et al., 2016; Yueh et al., 2023). This wider perspective suggests that the older person's view of frailty can differ from that of the healthcare definition, in that older adults can dispute the frailty ratings applied to them using the biomedically dominated frailty assessment tools (Cheung et al., 2021; Cluley et al., 2021; Gee et al., 2019; Puts et al., 2009; Shafiq et al., 2023). As such, the social sciences argue that excluding this wider perspective on frailty offers only a one‐dimensional view (Grenier & Hanley, 2007), forfeiting the need to develop more personalised approaches to care planning and delivery (Shaw et al., 2018; Skilbeck et al., 2017).…”