Comparing Models of Frailty: The Health and Retirement Study

doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02225.x

If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.

It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.

Wiley InterScience

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Volume 57 Issue 5, Pages 830 - 839

Published Online: 21 Apr 2009

Journal compilation 2010 The American Geriatrics Society/Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published on behalf of

Go to Society Site

< Previous Abstract | Next Abstract >

Save Article to My Profile Download Citation Request Permissions

Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 169K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking

Comparing Models of Frailty: The Health and Retirement Study

Christine T. Cigolle, MD, MPH ^*† , Mary Beth Ofstedal, PhD ^‡ , Zhiyi Tian, MA, MS ^§ , and Caroline S. Blaum, MD, MS ^†§

From the ^*Department of Family Medicine, ^‡Institute for Social Research, and ^§Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and ^†Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Address correspondence to Christine T. Cigolle, University of Michigan 300 N. Ingalls, Room 919, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: ccigolle@umich.edu

KEYWORDS

frailty • disability • chronic disease

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To operationalize and compare three models of frailty, each representing a distinct theoretical view of frailty: as deficiencies in function (Functional Domains model), as an index of health burden (Burden model), and as a biological syndrome (Biologic Syndrome model).

DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING: 2004 wave of the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative, longitudinal health interview survey.

PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 65 and older (N=11,113) living in the community and in nursing homes in the United States.

MEASUREMENTS: The outcome measure was the presence of frailty, as defined according to each frailty model. Covariates included chronic diseases and sociodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS: Almost one-third (30.2%) of respondents were frail according to at least one model; 3.1% were frail according to all three models. The Functional Domains model showed the least overlap with the other models. In contrast, 76.1% of those classified as frail according to the Biologic Syndrome model and 72.1% of those according to the Burden model were also frail according to at least one other model. Older adults identified as frail according to the different models differed in sociodemographic and chronic disease characteristics. For example, the Biologic Syndrome model demonstrated substantial associations with older age (adjusted odds ratio (OR)=10.6, 95% confidence interval (CI)=6.1–18.5), female sex (OR=1.7, 95% CI=1.2–2.5), and African-American ethnicity (OR=2.1, % CI=1.0–4.4).

CONCLUSION: Different models of frailty, based on different theoretical constructs, capture different groups of older adults. The different models may represent different frailty pathways or trajectories to adverse outcomes such as disability and death.

DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)

10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02225.x About DOI