The prevalence of frailty, measured with different diagnostic tools, and autonomy decline: Results of the Crystal study

INTRODUCTION: Frailty prevalence differs across different population depending on the models used to assess, age, economic situation, social status, and the proportion of men and women in the study. The diagnostic value of different models of frailty varies from population to population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of frailty using 4 different diagnostic models and their sensitivity for identifying persons with autonomy decline. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A random sample of 611 people aged 65 and over. Models used: the Age is not a blocking factor model, the SOF Frailty Index, the Groningen Frailty Indicator, L. Fried model. Covariates: nutritional status, anemia, functional status, depression, dementia, chronic diseases, grip strength, physical function. RESULTS: The prevalence of the Frailty Phenotype ranged from 16.6 to 20.4% and the Frailty Index was 32.6%. Frailty, regardless of the used models was associated with an increase in the prevalence of the geriatric syndromes: urinary incontinence, hearing and vision loss, physical decline, malnutrition and the risk of malnutrition, low cognitive functions and autonomy decline ( p < 0.05). The negative predictive value (NPV) of the Age is not a blocking factor model, the SOF Frailty Index, the Groningen Frailty Indicator for identifying individuals with autonomy decline was 86–90%. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of frailty depended on the operational definition and varied from 16.6 to 32.6%. The Age is not a blocking factor model, the SOF Frailty Index, the Groningen Frailty Indicator, L. Fried model can be used as screening tools to identify older patient with autonomy decline. Regardless of the model used, frailty is closely associated with an increase in the prevalence of major geriatric syndromes.