Abstract
Objective
To examine the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of the FRAIL-NH and four frailty screening instruments among institutionalized older adults.
Design
Cross-sectional study.
Setting
Institutionalized setting, Jinan, China.
Participants
A total of 305 older adults (mean age 79.3 ± 8.4 years, 57.0% female) were enrolled from nursing homes.
Measurements
Frailty was assessed by the FRAIL-NH, Physical Frailty Phenotype (PFP), FRAIL, Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), and Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), respectively. The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) was used as a reference standard of frailty. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to examine the DTA of five frailty screening instruments against the CGA. The optimal cut-point was determined by the maximum value of the Youden index (YI, calculated as sensitivity + specificity − 1).
Results
The prevalence of frailty ranged from 25.9% (FRAIL) to 56.4% (GFI). Areas under the curve (AUCs) against the CGA ranged from 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74–0.85: FRAIL] to 0.83 (95% CI 0.78–0.88: PFP). At their original cut-points, all five frailty screening instruments presented low sensitivity (32.9%–69.3%) and high specificity (80.0%–93.8%), as well as high positive predictive values (90.7%–94.9%) and low negative predictive values (33.2%–48.1%). At their optimal cut-points, the sensitivity and specificity of the FRAIL-NH, PFP, and FRAIL tended to be balanced, and their correctly classified rates (76.1%–81.3%) and kappa values (0.465–0.523) increased a lot. ROC contrasts showed that all five frailty screening instruments had similarly good diagnostic accuracy (χ2: 0.0003–1.38, P >.05).
Conclusion
In the institutionalized setting, the specific FRAIL-NH, self-report FRAIL, TFI, and GFI as well as hybrid PFP, show similarly good diagnostic properties in identifying frailty against the CGA.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Frailty has been associated with several adverse outcomes, such as disability, fall, hospitalization, and mortality, imposing heavy burden on frail older adults, care professionals and health care systems (1, 2). Previous studies have indicated that institutionalized older adults usually have high prevalence of frailty and are prone to a number of adverse outcomes in the short term (3, 4). Early identification coupled with effective interventions would offer opportunities to maximize their independence and quality of life and reduce health care costs.
The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional and multidisciplinary diagnostic process, which focuses on determining the clinical profile, pathological risk, residual skills, short- and long-term prognosis, and personalized therapeutic and care plans of the frail older subjects (5, 6). The CGA consists of a set of screening tools, including assessment of cognitive and functional status, physical performance, nutritional conditions, co-morbidity and medication use, psychological state and social support (7). Different from the standard medical evaluation, the CGA concentrates on frail older people with complex problems, emphasizes on functional status and quality of life, and uses interdisciplinary teams and quantitative assessment scales to enable detection of individuals’ strengths, needs, and potential risks to inform individualized care planning and monitoring (8, 9). Currently, the CGA has been applied in long-term care facilities and other healthcare settings, such as primary care and hospitals, and has presented to be beneficial for health outcomes, including reduced hospitalization events, physical independence, cognitive functions, mortality, and quality of care (6, 9). However, it is difficult to integrate the CGA into the routine practice on account of the time, expertise and resources required in the process of the CGA. Furthermore, long-term care facilities, particularly in China, are lacking in healthcare professionals and resources. As a result, it is not practical to use the CGA as a routine care measurement among institutionalized older adults. A simple but accurate frailty screening instrument is urgently needed that can be quickly administered to identify frail older adults who may benefit from high-intensity CGA, which could optimize the process of frailty diagnosis and management.
At present, several frailty screening instruments with distinct properties have been used in the institutionalized setting, such as the Physical Frailty Phenotype (PFP) (10–12), FRAIL (fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illnesses, and loss of weight) (13), the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) (10, 14), and Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) (10). These frailty instruments are developed on the basis of different conceptual models: The PFP was proposed from a biological model (2); the FRAIL was developed by combining the components in biological, deficit accumulation, and functional models (15); the TFI and GFI were based on the integrative concept of losses in different domains of functioning (16, 17). Also, these instruments vary in measurement ways. The PFP includes objective physical measurements (grip strength and gait speed), requiring specific devices and expertise, and face-to-face interview; the FRAIL, TFI and GFI, purely self-report questionnaires, could be easily administrated by mail and telephone besides face-to-face interview.
However, these screening instruments are originally developed for community-dwelling and/or clinical populations. The FRAIL-NH scale has been recently developed for specific use in nursing homes (18). It draws on the strengths of the FRAIL, but was adapted to better fit the institutionalized older adults. Additionally, the FRAIL-NH includes core characteristics of the PFP and Frailty Index classification systems (2, 15, 19). It is easy to administer and contains seven potentially reversible conditions of frailty, which are fatigue, resistance, ambulation, incontinence or illness, weight loss, nutritional approach, and help with dressing. Previous studies have focused on comparing the FRAIL-NH with other frailty screening instruments in assessing frailty prevalence, associated factors, and predictive validity for adverse outcomes (e.g., falls, hospitalization and mortality) in nursing homes (11, 20–22). However, it remains unclear whether the specific FRAIL-NH and other screening instruments widely used in the institutionalized setting demonstrate good diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) against the CGA as a reference standard. The DTA of screening instruments is particularly important for health workers and decision-makers to accurately identify frail individuals and early initiate tailored care plans to decrease adverse outcomes.
Therefore, we examined the DTA of the specific FRAIL-NH and four frailty screening instruments (PFP, FRAIL, TFI, and GFI) with distinct properties against the CGA, aiming to find an appropriate screening instrument that could accurately identify frail older adults that may benefit from the high-intensity CGA in the institutionalized setting.
Methods
Design, Setting, and Participants
We conducted a cross-sectional study among institutionalized adults aged 60 years or older between July 2015 and August 2016 in Jinan City, Shandong Province, China. Residents were selected from 23 nursing homes in 5 districts (Lixia, Licheng, Shizhong, Tianqiao, and Huaiyin District) in Jinan. We excluded participants with severe physical deficits and severe cognitive impairment (≥ 8 on the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ)) which precluded older adults to complete physical performance examinations (23). A total of 305 older adults living in the nursing homes for at least 1 month were enrolled. Participants received structured questionnaire interviews and physical measurements conducted by researchers. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Shandong University, Jinan, China. All participants signed written informed consent forms.
Measurements
Data were collected on nursing home characteristics (i.e., ownership and affiliation), demographic characteristics (i.e., age, sex, marital status, and education), and cognitive status evaluated by the SPMSQ (23).
Frailty Assessment
The FRAIL-NH (18) includes seven items (i.e., fatigue, resistance, ambulation, incontinence, weight loss, nutritional approach, and help with dressing). The range of possible total score is between 0 and 14, and a cut-point of 2 was used to identify frailty (11). The PFP (2) includes five components: exhaustion, weight loss, low physical activity, weakness, and slowness, with a score of 3–5 representing frail, 1–2 for pre-frail, and 0 for robust, respectively. The FRAIL (15, 24) scale comprises five self-report dichotomous items: frail (3–5), pre-frail (1–2), and robust (0). The TFI comprises 15 self-report items across physical, psychological, and social domains (range 0–15), with a cut-point of ≥ 5 (16). The GFI includes 15 self-report items focusing on the loss of functions and resources in physical, cognitive, psychological, and social domains, with a cut-point of ≥ 4 (17).
According to previous systematic reviews using the CGA as the reference standard of frailty among older cancer patients, the median domain of CGA was seven (range 3–9), involving cognition, function, mobility, nutrition, mood, polyparmacy, and social support (25, 26). The CGA in this study consists of seven domains with separate cut-offs indicating their abnormalities: cognition (SPMSQ, cut-off: ≥ 3) (23), function (Activity of Daily Living, ADL, having difficulties on at least one item of ADL) (27), mobility (Timed “Up & Go” Test, TUG, cut-off: > 20s) (28), depression (the 5-item Geriatric Depression Scale, GDS-5, cut-off: ≥ 2) (29), nutritional status (the Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form, MNA-SF, cut-off: < 12) (30), polypharmacy (≥ 5 prescription medications) (31), and social support (the Social Support Rating Scale, SSRS, cut-off: ≤ 31) (32). Consistent with previous studies (25, 26), frailty was defined as the presence of abnormalities in two or more CGA domains.
Statistical Analysis
Means (with standard deviations) and frequencies (with percentages) were used for continuous and categorical variables to characterize the sample, respectively. The receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) were plotted to evaluate the areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) for the FRAIL-NH, PFP, FRAIL, TFI, and GFI against the reference standard CGA. We considered an AUC > .70 as an indicator of good diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) (33). The optimal cut-point was determined by the maximum value of the Youden index (YI, calculated as sensitivity + specificity − 1). Diagnostic properties were calculated on sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), negative predictive values (NPVs), correctly classified rates (CCRs) and kappa values of the five frailty screening instruments at the optimal and original cut-points. The strength of agreement related to the kappa value is as follows: < 0, poor; 0 to 0.20, slight; 0.21 to 0.40, fair; 0.41 to 0.60, moderate; 0.61 to 0.80, substantial; 0.81 to 1.00, almost perfect (34). The nonparametric method described by DeLong et al.(35) was used to calculate standard errors and compare differences in AUCs. Analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 21.0 (IBM Corp., Somers, NY) and Stata 12.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, Texas). A probability level of P < .05 was considered statistically significant in a 2-tailed test.
Results
Of 23 nursing homes, the majority were private (78.3%) and freestanding (91.3%) (Table 1). Older participants had a mean age of 79.3 years, and the majority were female (57.0%), mateless (80.3%), and received primary school or lower educational level (57.4%). The prevalence of frailty ranged from 25.9% (FRAIL) to 56.4% (GFI). The CGA defined 73.8% of the participants as frail.
The AUCs (Table 2) ranged from 0.80 (FRAIL: 95% CI 0.74–0.85) to 0.83 (PFP: 95% CI 0.78–0.88) for five frailty screening instruments against the CGA in the detection of frailty. At their original cut-points, all the five frailty screening instruments presented low sensitivity (32.9%–69.3%) and high specificity (80.0%–93.8%), as well as high PPVs (94.9%–96.7%) and low NPVs (33.2%–48.1%). The CCRs of frailty ranged from 48.9% (FRAIL) to 72.1% (GFI), with varied agreement with the CGA (kappa: 0.168–0.407). At their optimal cut-points, the sensitivity and specificity of the FRAIL-NH, PFP, and FRAIL tended to be balanced, and their CCRs (76.1%–81.3%) and kappa values (0.465–0.523) increased a lot, but their PPVs were persistently high and their NPVs were persistently low. The optimal cut-points of the TFI and GFI were identical with their original cut-points, respectively.
On ROC contrasts (Figure 1), there were no significant differences in the AUCs between any screening instruments (χ2: 0.0003–1.38, P > .05).
Discussion
The prevalence of frailty varied widely by five frailty screening instruments among institutionalized older adults (25.9%–56.4%), consistent with previous studies among older residents of assisted living facilities (4) and nursing homes (10, 11), as well as other diverse populations including community-dwelling older adults (36–38), hospitalized patients (39, 40) and patients in medical emergency units (41). Also, the multidimensional TFI and GFI identified more frail older adults than did other purely physical dimensional instruments of the FRAIL, FRAIL-NH, and PFP. The reason may be that the multidimensional instruments include psychological and social components of frailty that were neglected by the purely physical dimensional instruments. That is, the wide variation in dimensions or components inherent in frailty screening instruments may explain why they identified differential frail older adults.
ROC analyses showed that all the five frailty screening instruments had good diagnostic accuracy against the CGA in the detection of frailty. However, their sensitivity (32.9%–69.3%) and specificity (80.0%–93.8%) at the original cut-point varied widely. Previous research among older cancer patients also observed the wide range of sensitivity (25%–92%) and specificity (39%–100%) when comparing the DTA of frailty screening instruments against the CGA (26). Besides, all the five frailty screening instruments had high specificity and high PPVs but low sensitivity and low NPVs, consistent with the results among older cancer patients (42, 43). This may be related to the higher prevalence of frailty among institutionalized older adults and older cancer patients (3, 25). In practice, the selection of frailty screening instrument with high sensitivity or with high specificity should be based on the specific context. A frailty screening instrument with high sensitivity and high NPV could have high accuracy to exclude frail individuals, while a screening instrument with high specificity and high PPV could accurately identify frail individuals. In the institutionalized setting lack of healthcare professionals and resources, a frailty screening instrument with high specificity and high PPV may be particularly important, because the limited resources can be allocated to really frail older adults who need high-intensity CGA and frailty interventions.
At their original cut-points, five frailty screening instruments had slight to moderate agreement with the CGA. However, at their optimal cut-points, the agreement increased a lot, especially for the FRAIL that increased from slight to moderate; their sensitivity and specificity were more balanced. Therefore, it is necessary to adjust the cut-off value of frailty for screening instruments in the institutionalized setting. Additionally, the cut-off value for screening instruments could be conditional on healthcare resources. A lower cut-off value with higher sensitivity may be adopted to reduce missed diagnoses and ensure more frail older adults to benefit from the CGA and care plans in the case of adequate healthcare resources, while a higher cut-off value with higher specificity may be adopted to reduce misdiagnoses and improve efficiency of resource allocations in short of healthcare resources.
Also, ROC contrasts for the AUCs against the CGA showed that the specific FRAIL-NH, self-report FRAIL, TFI, and GFI, as well as hybrid PFP had similarly good diagnostic accuracy. Although the PFP is widely recognized, it contains objective physical performance measures, such as gait speed and grip strength, which could not be assessed among older residents experiencing serious physical deficits. In addition, the CGA also involved physical performance measures, such as the TUG test. Therefore, we did not include those older residents with serious physical deficits when comparing the DTA of five frailty instruments. Going beyond the AUCs, the specific FRAIL-NH, which captures reversible conditions in nursing home residents, and self-report FRAIL, TFI, and GFI may be more applicable for their simplicity, flexibility and easy administration in the institutionalized setting where a substantial proportion of older residents experience dependencies.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the specific FRAIL-NH and several screening instruments against the CGA among institutionalized older adults. However, some limitations of our study should be noted. First, our study excluded a number of older adults with severe physical deficits and cognitive impairment, which may contribute to low identification of frailty. Also, the sample from one city may limit the generalisability of the results.
In conclusion, the prevalence of frailty among institutionalized older adults varies widely by five frailty screening instruments. The specific FRAIL-NH, self-report FRAIL, TFI and GFI, as well as hybrid PFP show similarly good diagnostic properties in identifying frailty against the CGA.
References
Lahousse L, Maes B, Ziere G, Loth DW, Verlinden VJ, Zillikens MC, et al. Adverse outcomes of frailty in the elderly: the Rotterdam Study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2014; 29:419–427.
Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. Journal of Gerontology: MEDICAL SCIENCES. 2001; 56:146–156.
Kojima G. Prevalence of Frailty in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015; 16:940–945.
Hogan DB, Freiheit EA, Strain LA, Patten SB, Schmaltz HN, Darryl R, et al. Comparing frailty measures in their ability to predict adverse outcome among older residents of assisted living. BMC Geriatrics. 2012; 12:56.
DH. S. Geriatric assessment: Methods for clinical decision making. JAMA. 1988; 259:2450–2452.
Panza F, Solfrizzi V, Lozupone M, Barulli MR, D’Urso F, Stallone R, et al. An Old Challenge with New Promises: A Systematic Review on Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Long-Term Care Facilities. Rejuvenation Res. 2018; 21:3–14.
Rubenstein LZ, Stuck AE, Siu AL, Wieland D. Impacts of geriatric evaluation and management programs on defined outcomes: overview of the evidence. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991; 39:8–16.
Hutchinson AM, Milke DL, Maisey S, Johnson C, Squires JE, Teare G, et al. The Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set 2.0 quality indicators: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010; 10:166.
Pilotto A, Cella A, Pilotto A, Daragjati J, Veronese N, Musacchio C, et al. Three Decades of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment: Evidence Coming From Different Healthcare Settings and Specific Clinical Conditions. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017; 18:192e191–192e111.
Buckinx F, Reginster JY, Gillain S, Petermans J, Brunois T, Bruyère O. Prevalence of Frailty in Nursing Home Residents According to Various Diagnostic Tools. J Frailty Aging. 2017; 4:122–128.
Martinez-Velilla N, Herce PA, Herrero AC, Gutierrez-Valencia M, Saez de Asteasu ML, Mateos AS, et al. Heterogeneity of Different Tools for Detecting the Prevalence of Frailty in Nursing Homes: Feasibility and Meaning of Different Approaches. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017; 18:898e891–898e898.
Hogan DB, Freiheit EA, Strain LA, Patten SB, Schmaltz HN, Rolfson D, et al. Comparing frailty measures in their ability to predict adverse outcome among older residents of assisted living. BMC Geriatr. 2012; 12:56.
Zhao M, Gao J, Li M, Wang K. Relationship Between Loneliness and Frailty Among Older Adults in Nursing Homes: The Mediating Role of Activity Engagement. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019; 20:759–764.
Gobbens RJ, Krans A, van Assen MA. Validation of an integral conceptual model of frailty in older residents of assisted living facilities. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2015; 61:400–410.
Abellan van Kan G, Rolland YM, Morley JE, Vellas B. Frailty: toward a clinical definition. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2008; 9:71–72.
Gobbens RJ, van Assen MA, Luijkx KG, Wijnen-Sponselee MT, Schols JM. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator: psychometric properties. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2010; 11:344–355.
Schuurmans H, Steverink N, Lindenberg S, Frieswijk N, Slaets JP. Old or Frail: What Tells Us More? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004; 59:962–965.
Kaehr E, Visvanathan R, Malmstrom TK, Morley JE. Frailty in Nursing Homes: The FRAIL-NH Scale. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015; 16:87–89.
Rockwood K, Mitnitski A. Frailty in Relation to the Accumulation of Deficits. J Gerontol Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007; 6:722–727.
Yang M, Zhuo Y, Hu X, Xie L. Predictive validity of two frailty tools for mortality in Chinese nursing home residents: frailty index based on common laboratory tests (FI-Lab) versus FRAIL-NH. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2018; 30:1445–1452.
Kaehr E W, Pape L C, Malmstrom T K, E. MJ. FRAIL-NH Predicts Outcomes in Long Term Care. J Nutr Health Aging. 2016; 20:192–198.
De Silva TR, Theou O, Vellas B, Cesari M, Visvanathan R. Frailty Screening (FRAIL-NH) and Mortality in French Nursing Homes: Results From the Incidence of Pneumonia and Related Consequences in Nursing Home Residents Study. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018; 19:411–414.
Pfeiffer E. A Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire for the Assessment of Organic Brain Deficit in Elderly Patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1975; 23:433–441.
Dong L, Qiao X, Tian X, Liu N, Jin Y, Si H, et al. Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the FRAIL Scale in Chinese Community-Dwelling Older Adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017.
Handforth C, Clegg A, Young C, Simpkins S, Seymour MT, Selby PJ, et al. The prevalence and outcomes of frailty in older cancer patients: a systematic review. Ann Oncol. 2015; 26:1091–1101.
Hamaker ME, Jonker JM, de Rooij SE, Vos AG, Smorenburg CH, van Munster BC. Frailty screening methods for predicting outcome of a comprehensive geriatric assessment in elderly patients with cancer: a systematic review. The Lancet Oncology. 2012; 13:e437–e444.
Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW. Studies of illness in the age. The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychological function. JAMA. 1963; 185:914–919.
Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991; 39:142–148.
Hoy MT, Alessi CA, Harker JO, Josephson KR, Pietruszka FM, Koelfgen M, et al. Development and testing of a five-item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999; 47:873–878.
Rubenstein LZ, Harker JO, Salvà A, Guigoz Y, Vellas B. Screening for under-nutrition in geriatric practice: developing the Short-Form Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA-SF). J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001; 56:366–372.
Gnjidic D, Hilmer SN, Blyth FM, Naganathan V, Waite L, Seibel MJ, et al. Polypharmacy cutoff and outcomes: five or more medicines were used to identify community-dwelling older men at risk of different adverse outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65:989–995.
Xiao SY. Theoretical Basis and Application of social support Rating Scale (SSRS). Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 1994; 4:3.
Drubbel I, Numans ME, Kranenburg G, Bleijenberg N, de Wit NJ, Schuurmans MJ. Screening for frailty in primary care: A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the frailty index in community-dwelling older people. BMC Geriatr. 2014; 14:27.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33:159–174.
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988; 44:837–845.
Roppolo M, Mulasso A, Gobbens RJ, Mosso CO, Rabaglietti E. A comparison between uni- and multidimensional frailty measures: prevalence, functional status, and relationships with disability. Clin Interv Aging. 2015; 10:1669–1678.
Malmstrom TK, Miller DK, Morley JE. A comparison of four frailty models. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014; 62:721–726.
Gonzalez-Colaco Harmand M, Meillon C, Bergua V, Tabue Teguo M, Dartigues JF, Avila-Funes JA, et al. Comparing the predictive value of three definitions of frailty: Results from the Three-City study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2017; 72:153–163.
Lin SM, Aliberti MJR, Fortes-Filho SQ, Melo JA, Aprahamian I, Suemoto CK, et al. Comparison of 3 Frailty Instruments in a Geriatric Acute Care Setting in a Low-Middle Income Country. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018; 19:310–314 e313.
Chong E, Ho E, Baldevarona-Llego J, Chan M, Wu L, Tay L, et al. Frailty in Hospitalized Older Adults: Comparing Different Frailty Measures in Predicting Short-and Long-term Patient Outcomes. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018; 19:450–457 e453.
Wou F, Gladman JR, Bradshaw L, Franklin M, Edmans J, Conroy SP. The predictive properties of frailty-rating scales in the acute medical unit. Age Ageing. 2013; 42:776–781.
Baitar A, Van Fraeyenhove F, Vandebroek A, De Droogh E, Galdermans D, Mebis J, et al. Evaluation of the Groningen Frailty Indicator and the G8 questionnaire as screening tools for frailty in older patients with cancer. J Geriatr Oncol. 2013; 4:32–38.
Pottel L, Boterberg T, Pottel H, Goethals L, Van Den Noortgate N, Duprez F, et al. Determination of an adequate screening tool for identification of vulnerable elderly head and neck cancer patients treated with radio(chemo)therapy. Journal of Geriatric Oncology. 2012; 3:24–32.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank nursing home administrators and residents for their valuable support and participation. The abstract of this paper was submitted to Chinese Congress on Gerontology and Health Industry on August 31, 2018 and the International China Conference on Frailty on September 3, 2018 and the SINO-US Nursing Forum on September 27, 2019.
Funding
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC: 71673168). Cuili Wang is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation Program at the Peking University. The sponsor had no role in study design, methods, subject recruitment, data collection, analysis, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interests.
Ethical standards: The study complies with the current laws of the country in which it was performed.
Impact statement: We examine and compare the diagnostic test accuracy of the FRALL-NH scale and four frailty screening instruments among institutionalized older adults, which is the first study conducted in an institutionalized setting.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Si, H., Jin, Y., Qiao, X. et al. Comparing Diagnostic Properties of the FRAIL-NH Scale and 4 Frailty Screening Instruments among Chinese Institutionalized Older Adults. J Nutr Health Aging 24, 188–193 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-019-1301-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-019-1301-z