4.6 Article

Frailty and usage of health care systems: Results from the South Australian Monitoring and Surveillance System (SAMSS)

期刊

MATURITAS
卷 104, 期 -, 页码 36-43

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.07.003

关键词

(MeSH): frail elderly; Health services/utilization; South Australia/epidemiology

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [1112672]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Little is known about frailty and its impact on health-care systems. Using large-scale population health surveillance data, this study determined the prevalence of frailty, its associated factors, and the impact it places on health care services. Study design: A cross-sectional snapshot of the 2013-2015 South Australian Monitoring and Surveillance System (SAMSS) database was used, focusing on individuals aged >= 65 years. Frailty was assessed by the Frailty Index (FI), and classified as robust (scores <= 0.1), pre-frail ( > 0.1 to <= 0.25), and frail (> 0.25). Results: 7207 people (53.7% female) were included; mean (SD) age was 74.8 (7.17) years. The mean (SD) FI score was 0.23 (0.11), with a 99% upper limit of 0.53. Over a third (36.3% (95% CI 34.8-37.9)) were classified as frail and over half (53.6% (95% CI 52.0-55.1)) as pre -frail. Frailty was less common in rural areas, and was associated with age, lower education level, and higher socioeconomic disadvantage. After adjustment for confounders, multivariable analyses showed a gradient effect by frailty classification with regard to both hospital and non-hospital-based services. Frail older adults were more likely to present to hospital Emergency Departments (EDs) than their pre -frail or robust counterparts, yet visited the GP at the same rate as older adults with pre-frailty. Conclusion: Frail older adults were higher users of health care services, with the exception of GPs. Knowledge of the health service usage patterns of frail older adults can be used to direct public health policy and plan future GP provision.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据