4.2 Article

Thinking you're old and frail': a qualitative study of frailty in older adults

期刊

AGEING & SOCIETY
卷 36, 期 7, 页码 1483-1500

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0144686X1500046X

关键词

frailty; identity; perceptions of ageing; qualitative study

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for the South West Peninsula
  2. National Institute for Health Research [KMRF-2013-02-02] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [KMRF-2013-02-02] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many older adults experience what is clinically recognised as frailty but little is known about the perceptions of, and attitudes regarding, being frail. This qualitative study explored adults' perceptions of frailty and their beliefs concerning its progression and consequences. Twenty-nine participants aged 66-98 with varying degrees of frailty, residing either in their homes or institutional settings, participated in semi-structured interviews. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using a Grounded Theory approach. Self-identifying as frail' was perceived by participants to be strongly related to their own levels of health and engagement in social and physical activity. Being labelled by others as old and frail' contributed to the development of a frailty identity by encouraging attitudinal and behavioural confirmation of it, including a loss of interest in participating in social and physical activities, poor physical health and increased stigmatisation. Using both individual and social context, different strategies were used to resist self-identification. The study provides insights into older adults' perceptions and attitudes regarding frailty, including the development of a frailty identity and its relationship with activity levels and health. The implications of these findings for future research and practice are discussed.

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

4.2
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