4.1 Article

Prevalence of frailty in an elderly Spanish urban population. Relationship with comorbidity and disability

Journal

ATENCION PRIMARIA
Volume 42, Issue 10, Pages 520-527

Publisher

EDICIONES DOYMA S A
DOI: 10.1016/j.aprim.2009.09.024

Keywords

Frailty; Elderly; Prevalence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: To estimate prevalence of frailty, by Fried criteria, in a Spanish urban old population, and to analyse relationship with comorbidity and disability. Population: Aged >= 65 living in Penagrande area (Fuencarral district in Madrid, Spain). Design: Cross-sectional study. Baseline evaluation of Cohort of Penagrande established in 814 person. Measurements: Frailty was defined by the presence of >= 3 of the following criteria: unintentional weight loss, weakness (grip strength), exhaustion, low walking speed, and low physical activity. Age, gender, marital status, educational level, global income at home, comorbidity and disability were measured. A descriptive bivariate and multivariate analysis was performed and ponderated by age and gender in study population. Association was estimated by Odds Ratio and confidence intervals (OR, IC 95%). Results: 73,3% participated (N=814), 48,6% were men and the median age was 76 [71-83]. The estimated prevalence of frailty in the study population was 10,3% (IC95%: 8,2-12,5): 8,1% male and 11,9% female (p = 0.084). Frailty was associated with aged >= 85 (OR = 3,61; IC95%: 1,26-10,29), low educational level (OR = 1,71; IC95%: 1,01-2,90), comorbidity (OR = 1,27; IC95%:1,03 - 1,56 by each process) and disability (OR = 15,61; IC95%; 8,88-27,45). Conclusions: Prevalence of frailty in an elderly spanish population is similar to international studies. In our environment first beneficiary population for frailty detection is constituted by people aged >= 85, and those with comorbidity and low educational level. (C) 2009 Elsevier Espana, S.L. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available