Diez-Ruiz et al.

BMC Geriatrics (2016) 16:91

DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0263-9

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Open Access

Factors associated with frailty in primary

care: a prospective cohort study
Ana Diez-Ruiz1, Antonio Bueno-Errandonea1, Jazmina Nuez-Barrio1, Inmaculada Sanchez-Martn1,
Kalliopi Vrotsou2 and Itziar Vergara2*

Abstract
Background: Frailty can be defined as a progressive loss of reserve and adaptive capacity associated with an overall
deterioration in health that can result in disability, loss of independence, hospitalisation, extensive use of healthcare
resources, admission to long-term care and death. Nevertheless, despite widespread use of the term, there is no
agreement on the definition of frailty or an instrument to identify it in a straightforward way. The purpose of the
current study was to explore which factors are associated with frailty-related adverse outcomes in elderly individuals
and to propose a suitable tool for identifying such individuals, particularly in primary care settings.
Methods: A prospective open cohort study of community dwelling, independent individuals aged 75 or over, followed
up for 2 years. The study was entirely conducted in a primary care setting. Study variables included independence status
measured by Barthels Index and the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale, functional performance, assessed
by Timed Up and Go (TUG) and Gait Speed (GS) tests and levels of polipharmacy, comorbidity and social support.
Outcome variables were specific frailty-related adverse events, namely, loss of independence and death.
Results: Overall, 215 community-dwelling independent individuals initiated the study. Of these, 46 were lost to
follow-up and 50 had frailty-related adverse events during the follow-up period. Individuals with adverse
events during the study had poorer functional status at baseline. The multivariate model that best explained
the occurrence of these events included the variables of age, presence of polipharmacy and the TUG time.
The AUC (Area under the curve) of this model was 0.822.
Conclusions: Given the simplicity of assessing the three derived factors and their combined discriminant
power, the proposed model may be considered a suitable tool for identifying frail patients, i.e., people more
likely to lose their independence or die within a relatively short time interval.
Keywords: Frailty, Identification, Primary care

Background
Frailty can be defined as a progressive loss of reserve and
adaptive capacity associated with an overall deterioration
in health that can result in disability, loss of independence,
hospitalisation, extensive use of healthcare resources, admission to long-term care and death [13]. Nevertheless,
despite the widespread use of the term, there is no agreement on the definition of frailty [4, 5] or on an instrument
to identify it [6] in a straightforward way, particularly in
primary care.
* Correspondence: [email protected]
2
Unidad de Investigacin AP-OSIs de Gipuzkoa, Osakidetza, Instituto
Investigacin Sanitaria Biodonostia, REDISSEC, Paseo Dr. Begiristain s/n, San
Sebastian-Donostia 20014, Spain
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

Three approaches for the identification of frail individuals have been described in the literature [7]: the
rules-based, the cumulative and the clinical judgment.
Rules-based approaches are derived from multiple
regression models and are based on the presence of a
number of symptoms. The phenotypic approach would
be included in this group [1]. Cumulative-based
approaches are based on the consideration and addition
of the number of impairments presented by a single
person [8]. Finally, clinical judgment based approaches
rely on the professional interpretation of the clinical
record and physical examinations [7].
A frequently considered aspect in the aforementioned
approaches is functional performance. Several instruments

2016 Diez-Ruiz et al. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Diez-Ruiz et al. BMC Geriatrics (2016) 16:91

have been proposed to assess various aspects of functional

performance such as motor strength, mobility and balance. Those most commonly used being the Timed Up
and Go (TUG) [9, 10] and Gait Speed (GS) tests [11, 12].
Such tests have demonstrated their usefulness in terms of
monitoring the health status, functional capacity and risk
of falls of elderly people [11, 1315].
Early identification of frail individuals in primary care
could have a double impact. On the one hand, it may help
improve the health status of identified individuals, since it
would be possible to address their needs in a comprehensive manner, delaying or preventing the natural progression
towards dependence [16]. On the other hand, it may lead
to reductions in resources use [2].
The objective of this study was to assess which factors
are associated with frailty-related adverse outcomes in
elderly individuals and on the basis of these results and
from a rules-based perspective, to propose a suitable
instrument for identifying these patients in primary care.

Methods
Study population and recruitment

An open cohort of community-dwelling individuals, aged

75 years or more and independent (Barthels index 90) at
the time of inclusion. Patients of advanced age were
selected in order to assure a rate of occurrence of the
defined adverse outcomes, adequate to the project design
and span [17, 18]. Recruitment took place in the primary
care centres of two municipalities in Gipuzkoa (Spain)
and subjects were followed up for 2 years. The participating health centres are situated in an urban area close
to the provincial capital (San Sebastian) and their population characteristics are similar to the Basque Country
region in terms of age, sex and deprivation index [19].
These centres provide primary care services to a total
adult population of around 30,000 individuals. The
study was carried out between July 2010 and December
2013.
Eligible individuals were selected randomly from administrative databases in order to obtain a representative sample of the reference population in terms of age and sex.
After being informed about the study by their corresponding primary care doctors they were invited to a meeting
where detailed information about the research project was
presented and informed consent was provided. The study
was approved by the Clinical research ethics committee of
the Gipuzkoa health region (ref.: 05/2010).
Individuals were excluded from the study if they
were institutionalised, planned to move within the following 2 years or were included in a home care
programme for chronic health problems. Patients with
impaired cognitive function, defined as 5 or more
errors on the Pfeiffers Short Portable Mental Status
Questionnaire [20, 21], and those who were dependant,

Page 2 of 8

defined as a score <90 in the Barthels index [22] were also

excluded. All participants provided informed consent.
Study variables

As main outcome variables were considered the events

of death and loss of independence; the latter defined as
loss of of 10 % of the baseline Barthel score during the
study follow-up period, considering that this reduction
on Barthel score imply the loss of independence in preforming a basic daily living activity [2327].
Interviews were performed on an individual basis and
information collected at baseline included among others:
age, sex, level of education, living arrangements, and
social risk measured using the Gijon Scale [28]. To
assess participants functional status, the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) Scale [23, 29]
and two physical functional performance tests (TUG
and GS) [9, 11] were used. To assess overall health
status, information was requested regarding loss in body
weight, level of physical exercise, sensory deficits including hearing impairment, and self-perceived health using
the following question: How would you rate your
health?
Additionally, health records were reviewed to detect
any falls and hospital admissions in the previous year; to
confirm the presence/absence of polipharmacy, defined
as the simultaneous prescription of 4 or more drugs
continuously for 3 or more months [30]; and/or comorbidity, defined as three or more of the following conditions: stroke with sequelae, myocardial infarction or
recently diagnosed heart failure, Parkinsons disease,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, musculoskeletal
disorders resulting in pain or functional impairment,
diabetes mellitus treated orally or with insulin, neurological gait disorders, unresolved urinary complaints,
and mental illness under treatment with psychoactive
medication [31]. The interviews and review of health
records were carried out by two nurses trained for the
purpose.
Follow-up

Every six months from the date of recruitment and over

the 2 years of follow-up, patients were appointed for an
additional assessment. These assessments included all
the aforementioned functional and daily activity measures (Barthels index, Lawtons scale, TUG and GS tests)
and information about weight, physical exercise, sensory
deficits and self-perceived health. The corresponding
nurse was contacting patients not attending a follow-up
assessment visit. Those stating that they lost interest in
the study were considered drop-outs. Patients who lost
independence and had to be admitted to an older peoples home were registered as dependent. If the family
took care of the dependent individuals, Barthel values

Diez-Ruiz et al. BMC Geriatrics (2016) 16:91

were also collected by interviewing the person responsible

to provide for them. Death events were verified by medical
records. Patients who could not be located and did not
come back for the rest of the assessments were considered
drop-outs. Patients, who returned after missing certain
assessments, were kept in the final sample and were
assigned in the corresponding outcome group. No missing
values imputation was performed for the needs of this
study.
Sample size

Loss of independence and mortality rates in subjects over

75-years of age were reviewed in previous studies in our
setting (non-published data). Obtained estimates were
equal to 18 and 5 % respectively. Assuming a dropout rate
of 10 % during the follow-up period, we calculated that
with n = 200 participants we could expect around 40
individuals to lose their independence by the end of the
study. Given the binary nature of the considered outcome (deterioration Yes/No), applying the rule of
thumb of 10 events per variable this sample size would
enable us to construct binary logistic regression models
including simultaneously 4 to 5 predictive factors,
should results indicate that many factors to be relevant.
Statistical analysis

The unit of analysis was the patient. Descriptive statistics

were used to analyse dependent and independent variables
at baseline and each follow-up assessment. Frequencies
and percentages were calculated for categorical data and
means and standard deviations (SD) or medians and interquartile ranges (Q1, Q3) for continuous data, depending
on their distribution. Categorical variables were compared
with chi-squared or Fishers exact tests while Students ttest or the non-parametric Wilcoxon were implemented
for normally and non-normally distributed continuous
variables.
In order to assess whether missing data were random
or were associated with specific patient characteristics,
socio-demographic and clinical characteristics variables
were compared between lost to follow-up individuals
and those who completed the follow-up. Finally, univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression models
were constructed to assess the relationship between each
of the independent variables and the occurrence of the
frailty-related adverse events under study. All variables
with significance levels p 0.10 in the univariate analysis
were considered for the construction of the multivariate
model. At this stage both backward and forward stepwise models were tested. In the backward procedure all
relevant variables entered in the same model. Nonsignificant variables were eliminated one-by-one, based
on their p-values (eliminating the less significant first),
until no p-value >0.05 were left in the model. In the

Page 3 of 8

forward procedure, the most significant variable entered

in the model, followed by the next more significant etc.,
eliminating those with p-value > 0.05 [32].
In a secondary stage sensitivity analyses were performed. Further multivariate models were fitted, making
different assumptions about the drop-out patients. In
particular it was assumed that: a) all lost to follow-up
had a negative outcome; b) all lost to follow up had a
positive outcome; c) those not located had a negative
outcome and finally d) those not located had a positive
outcome.
The diagnostic performance and goodness-of-fit statistics were studied for all constructed models. The results
of the final model are presented in terms of odds ratios
(OR) with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CI).
The area under the curve (AUC), Hosmer-Lemeshow
statistic and R-square values are also reported. Results
were considered statistically significant when p <0.05.
All analyses were performed with the SAS 9.3 software.

Results
A total of n = 215 individuals were initially included in
the study and of those n = 169 completed the proposed
follow-up. No significant differences were found in
terms of socio-demographic and clinical characteristics
between lost to follow-up subjects and those who completed the study. At the end of the follow-up period, n
= 119 subjects remained independent, while the other
n = 50 participants (24 %) had a frailty-related adverse
outcome: death (n = 8) or loss of independence (n = 42)
(Fig. 1). The rates of independence loss in the first and
second years were 8.3 and 2.6 %, respectively.
At baseline, participants had a mean age of 79.4
(SD: 4.1) years and 63 % were women. A high proportion of subjects presented comorbidity (72 %) and
polipharmacy (61 %). Comparing the baseline status
of those who eventually developed a frailty-related
adverse outcome and those who did not, we observed
the following. The adverse outcome group was on
average 3 years older (p < 0.001), had a lower level of
physical activity (p = 0.001) and was more likely to
present polipharmacy (p = 0.001) or comorbidity (p =
0.032). In addition, it presented more hospital admissions in the previous year (p = 0.013) and declared a
poorer self-perceived health status. No significant differences were found in the variables of sex, body
mass index, visual or auditory deficits and accidental
falls in the previous year (Table 1).
As far as functional status is concerned, participants
who developed frailty-related adverse outcomes, despite
being independent at baseline, had lower levels of functioning in terms of basic activities of daily living
(Barthels index) and IADL (Lawtons score). Significant
differences were also observed in the functional

Diez-Ruiz et al. BMC Geriatrics (2016) 16:91

Page 4 of 8

Fig. 1 Flow chart of patient recruitment and follow-up

performance tests of TUG and GS at baseline. Participants

with frailty-related adverse outcomes performed worse in
both (p < 0.001) (Table 2). No socio-demographic differences were observed between those finishing the study
and drop-out subjects. The latter were half a year older
than the rest (mean drop-out age 79.9 (SD: 4.0), p =
0.398); 39 % of them were men, compared to 36 % of
those completing the study (p = 0.705). Both groups had
similar baseline Barthel values (p = 0.901) and selfperceived health (p = 0.218).
Except for Barthel and Lawton scales, all other variables with p-values 0.10 presented in Tables 1 and 2
were implemented in the construction of the multivariate logistic regression model. Its worth mentioning that
due to their high correlation (r = 0.821), GS and TUG
could not be both considered in the same model and the
TUG was selected given its capacities [33]. Furthermore,
the presence of comorbidity and having specific health
problems (e.g., musculoskeletal disorders) were not significant in any of the models that included the polipharmacy variable, possibly due to the strong association

between these factors. Both the forward and backward

stepwise regressions resulted in the same multivariate
model.
The multivariate logistic regression model that best
fitted the data included age (OR: 1.14; 95 % CI: 1.03,
1.25), polipharmacy status (OR: 2.74; 95 % CI: 1.06,
7.06) and TUG time (in seconds) (OR: 1.28, 95 % CI:
1.14, 1.44) (Table 3). Our results suggest that these factors have good discriminant validity, with an area under
the curve (AUC) of 0.822 (Fig. 2), adjusted R-squared
of 0.384 and Hosmer Lemeshow p = 0.721 (Table 3).
The additional sensitivity analyses gave the following results. When all lost to follow-up (n = 46) were
assumed to be finally dependent, the derived model
included the variables of age, TUG and at least one
hospital admission in the last year. When only those
not located (n = 29) were considered dependent, the
model included age and TUG. When all lost to
follow-up (n = 46) or only those not located (n = 29)
were assumed to be independent, the final models included the variables of age, TUG and polipharmacy.

Diez-Ruiz et al. BMC Geriatrics (2016) 16:91

Page 5 of 8

Table 1 Baseline data of the entire sample and comparison between the two groups of adverse events
Adverse event
Baseline variables

Total (N = 215)

Yes (n = 50)

No (n = 119)

p-value

Age; mean (SD)

79.4 (4.1)

81.7 (4.6)

78.4 (3.5)

<0.001

Sex: Female

136 (63)

32 (64)

76 (64)

0.987

Able to read and write

205 (95)

47 (94)

114 (96)

0.695

Living with spouse of family member

162 (75)

35 (70)

88 (74)

0.599

Weight loss in the last yearb

18 (8)

6 (12)

5 (4)

0.085

Low level of physical activity

22 (10)

11 (22)

6 (5)

0.001

Polipharmacy

131 (61)

41 (82)

65 (55)

0.001

Fall in the previous year

52 (24)

12 (24)

30 (25)

0.868

Hospital admission in the previous year

36 (17)

13 (26)

13 (11)

0.013

136 (63)

26 (52)

91 (77)

0.003

Self-perceived health
Good/very good
Fair

73 (34)

23 (46)

26 (22)

Poor/very poor

7 (3)

1 (2)

2 (1)

Social risk (Gijon); median (Q1, Q3)

10 (9, 12)

10 (8, 12)

10 (9, 12)

0.442

Comorbidity: Yes

153 (72)

35 (70)

62 (52)

0.032

63 (29)

18 (36)

33 (28)

0.285

Presence of health problems

Body mass index >30 kg/m2

Musculoskeletal disorders

52 (24)

17 (34)

21 (18)

0.020

Diabetes under treatment

37 (17)

8 (16)

23 (19)

0.610

Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseb

12 (6)

6 (12)

1 (1)

0.003

8 (4)

3 (6)

2 (1)

0.154

6 (3)

1 (2)

4 (4)

1.000

Visual deficit

Auditory deficit b

Adverse event: death or loss of independence defined as 10 % drop in Barthels score compared to baseline, during the follow-up. Data are expressed as frequencies
(percentages), unless otherwise stated. For dichotomous variables one of the two categories are presented.
a
Presented health problems are not exclusive; a patient can suffer by more than one. P values in the last column refer to comparisons between the groups with
and without adverse events (Yes vs. No). Age was compared with Students t test
b
these variables were compared with Fishers exact test, the Chi-square test was implemented for the rest of the variables

The AUCs of all four models oscillated between 0.733

and 0.795.

Discussion
Proper identification of frail individuals in primary care
represents an unresolved challenge. The current study,

leaving aside discussions on the definition of frailty and

its components, addresses this issue from a pragmatic
point of view. Subjects able to perform basic daily living
activities (BADL), so independent, are considered frail
when they lose independence or die in a maximum
period of two years. With this approach, the prevalence

Table 2 Baseline data on functioning and comparison between groups with and without adverse frailty-related outcomes
Adverse event
Functional tests

Yes (n = 50)

No (n = 119)

p-value

90 points

16 (32)

7 (6)

<0.001

95100 points

34 (68)

112 (94)

Lawton IADL; median (Q1, Q3)

6 (4, 8)

8 (5, 8)

<0.001

Timed Up and Go time, s; median (Q1, Q3)

15 (13, 22)

12.5 (11, 14)

<0.001

Gait Speed, m/s.; mean (SD)

0.8 (0.2)

1.1 (0.2)

<0.001

Barthels index; n (%)

Categorical variables were compared with the chi-squared test; means and medians were compared using the Students t and Wilcoxon tests, respectively
Adverse event death or loss of independence defined as 10 % drop in Barthels score compared to baseline, during the follow-up, IADL Instrumental activities of
daily living. The abbreviations: s and m/s indicate seconds and meters per second respectively. Q1, Q3 interquartile range from the first to the third quartile, SD
standard deviation

Diez-Ruiz et al. BMC Geriatrics (2016) 16:91

Page 6 of 8

Table 3 Multivariate logistic regression model for the onset of

adverse events related to frailty
Variable

Odds ratio

95 % CI

p-value

Age, years

1.14

1.03, 1.25

0.012

Timed Up and Go time, s

1.28

1.14, 1.44

<0.001

No

Ref

Yes

2.74

1.06, 7.06

0.037

Polipharmacy

Goodness-of-fit statistics
Area under the curve: 0.822
R squared / adjusted R squared: 0.270/ 0.384
Hosmer-Lemeshow: p = 0.721
The probability of suffering a frailty-related adverse event during the follow-up
period was modelled. Adverse event: death or loss of independence defined
as 10 % drop in Barthels score compared to baseline, during the follow-up,
95 % CI: 95 % confidence interval. Polypharmacy: long-term prescription of 4
drugs. The model is based on n = 50 adverse events and n = 118 positive
events due to 1 missing value in TUG test

of frailty in our sample would be 24 %, higher than

expected in our setting, but in agreement with other
published studies [4, 34].
Our study shows that it is possible to identify clear differences between groups of community-dwelling elderly
individuals that do and do not lose their independence
within 2 years. The differences are significant in terms of
age, level of physical activity, health status and functional

Fig. 2 ROC of the proposed model for identifying frailty in primary care.
Receiver operating characteristic curve for the final model to
predict frailty-related outcomes, based on age, Timed Up and Go
time and polypharmacy status. The curve represents the relationship
between sensitivity and 1-specificity for all potential cut-off points of
the diagnostic test under study. The area under the curve (AUC), a
measure of the discriminatory power of the test, is 0.822. The cut-off
point that maximises sensitivity and specificity (i.e., 76 %) is 0.288

capacity. The current results are in agreement with the

literature on this topic, indicating association between
frailty with age, comorbidity, self-perceived health and
functional status [35]. No differences in terms of socioeconomic status, or family and social network were
found in our sample.
Considering the prospective nature of the methodology used in this study and the rules-based approach
proposed for the construction of operational definitions
of frailty, we found that the factors associated with
frailty-related adverse outcomes could be expressed in a
single model including age, polipharmacy status and
TUG time. We should underline that when constructing
the model polipharmacy was selected over other
comorbidity-related variables, as it is easier to assess
than other comorbidity indices. As stated in the results
section, none of these other variables was statistically
significant when considered simultaneously with polipharmacy, most likely due to the existing relations
between them. The sensitivity analyses performed seems
to support the presented model. Even though hospital
admission turned out to be significant, when all dropouts were considered dependent, it is a fact that hospital
admission and polipharmacy are not independent, rather
highly related variables. Recent hospital admission may
be indicative of a health problem which can end up in a
negative outcome and has been often described as associated to frailty [36]. A high association between the two
was also found in our in our sample (p = 0.002).
To date, a variety of approaches have been suggested
for identifying frail individuals. One well-known
approach uses the frailty phenotype proposed by Fried
in 2001 [1], based on the presence of at least three of
the following deficits: slow gait speed, weak grip
strength, low level of physical activity, exhaustion and
unintentional weight loss. Despite the widespread use
of this phenotype in research, this tool has not been
widely adopted in clinical practice, possibly due to the
lack of population studies establishing diagnostic cutoffs for some of the criteria [3]. Other ways of identifying frail individuals involve frailty indices, based on
cumulative approaches [37]. Indices published in recent
years include the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Frailty Instrument [38, 39],
and the Program of Research to Integrate Services for
the Maintenance of Autonomy (PRISMA) questionnaire
[40]. These indices assess the existence of deficits in
areas such as strength, balance, nutrition, resistance,
mobility, physical activity and cognitive ability, but
none of them have been taken up in primary care settings. Also, a third approach based on the clinical judgment its being explored. In this group, the Grontople
Frailty Screening Tool [41] and the EASY-Care TOS
[42, 43] can be considered. The latter, with a specific

Diez-Ruiz et al. BMC Geriatrics (2016) 16:91

focus on primary care settings, provides a robust and

easy to perform two step tool for the identification of
frail patients in primary care practices. It is interesting
to note the parallelisms with this article especially regarding aim (primary care oriented) and methodology
(longitudinal, adverse outcome based). Nevertheless,
the main difference is the implemented frailty identification approach. Our tool is a rules-based one while
EASY-Care TOs is based on clinical judgment. Additionally, our proposal overcomes one of the main
limitations of the clinical judgment based tools, which
is that they rely on a strong and long term patient
care professional relationship, whereas the proposed
tool is based on three objective and easy to measure
variables, not requiring previous knowledge of the patients clinical history. Hence, given the characteristics
and simplicity of our model, we believe that once validated in a different and broader population, it could
be considered as a screening test for identifying frail
individuals in primary care.
The main limitation of our study is related to its
cohort design and associated losses to follow-up. To
minimise this bias, we thoroughly informed patients
about the goals of the research, arranged informative
meetings with them and carried out a campaign to raise
awareness of the study in the participating health centres. There were more losses during the follow-up
period than expected, but figures were similar to those
of other studies and are considered acceptable [44]; further, we reached the number of frailty-related adverse
outcomes expected, which has enabled us to achieve the
desired robustness in the analysis. Another notable limitation is the fact that repeating performance tests may
lead to a certain degree of training. In any case, this
limitation would underestimate the onset of functional
deterioration and hence would not affect the validity of
the results [45]. To minimise bias from inter-observer differences, we standardised the criteria for the administration of the various different scales and tests and trained
the nurses in charge of data collection.
The main strength of this study is the fact that it was
conducted entirely in a primary care setting. Many studies in this field are conducted in geriatric settings, where
population characteristics and patient needs are very different. A recently initiated research project (reference
PI14/01905) will allow us to further validate the ability
of the proposed model in identifying frail individuals in
a larger sample of independent community dwelling
elders aged 70 or more.

Conclusions
It is possible to identify frail individuals considering their
age, polipharmacy status and functional capacity. These

Page 7 of 8

three factors can be assessed in a simple and quick way,

fact which renders the proposed model suitable to use in
primary care.
Ethics approval and consent to participate

All participants received complete information about the

project and written informed consent was provided. The
study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics
Committee of the Gipuzkoa Health Region (ref.: 05/
2010).
Consent for publication

Not applicable.
Availability of data and materials

The database set was available for all authors of the study
and will be available for other non-commercial researches
on request.
Abbreviations
AUC: area under the curve; BADL: basic activities of daily living;
CI: confidence intervals; GS: gait speed; IADL: Instrumental activities of daily
living; OR: odds; PRISMA: Program of research to integrate services for the
maintenance of autonomy; SD: standard deviations; SHARE: Survey of health,
ageing and retirement in Europe; TUG: Timed up and go.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors contributions
AD, AB, JN, KV, IS, IV have made substantial contributions to conception and
design of the study; KV, performed the analysis and IV, AB, AD, IS interpreted
the data; IV, KV have been involved in drafting the manuscript and AD
revised it critically for important intellectual content; AD, AB, JN, KV, IS, IV
have given final approval of the version to be published and agree to be
accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to
the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately
investigated and resolved.
Acknowledgements
Authors wish to thank all the participants who took part on this study for
their interest and generous dedication.
Funding
Gobierno Vasco- Eusko Jaurlaritza. Departamento de Sanidad y Consumo.
Ayudas investigacin sanitarias 2011. Proyecto N: 2011111122.
Author details
1
Centro de Salud Errenteria-Beraun, OSI Donostialdea, Osakidetza, Errentera,
Gipuzkoa, Spain. 2Unidad de Investigacin AP-OSIs de Gipuzkoa, Osakidetza,
Instituto Investigacin Sanitaria Biodonostia, REDISSEC, Paseo Dr. Begiristain
s/n, San Sebastian-Donostia 20014, Spain.
Received: 4 January 2016 Accepted: 21 April 2016

References
1. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al.
Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med
Sci. 2001;56 (3).
2. Lacas A, Rockwood K. Frailty in primary care: a review of its conceptualization
and implications for practice. BMC Med. 2012;10:4.
3. Garcia-Garcia FJ, Alfaro AA. Fragilidad: de la epidemiologa a la clnica. Rev
Esp Geriatr Gerontol. 2010;45:2501.
4. Santos-Eggimann B, Karmaniola A, Seematter-Bagnoud L, Spagnoli J, Bula C,
Cornuz J, et al. The Lausanne cohort Lc65+: a population-based prospective

Diez-Ruiz et al. BMC Geriatrics (2016) 16:91

5.
6.
7.

8.
9.
10.
11.

12.

13.

14.

15.
16.

17.

18.

19.
20.
21.

22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.

28.
29.

study of the manifestations, determinants and outcomes of frailty. BMC

Geriatr. 2008;8:20.
Pialoux T, Goyard J, Lesourd B. Screening tools for frailty in primary health
care: a systematic review. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2012;12:18997.
Van Abellan KG, Rolland Y, Houles M, Gillette-Guyonnet S, Soto M, Vellas B.
The assessment of frailty in older adults. Clin Geriatr Med. 2010;26:27586.
Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, Bergman H, Hogan DB, McDowell I,
et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people.
CMAJ. 2005;173:48995.
Rockwood K, Mitnitski AB, MacKnight C. Some mathematical models of
frailty and their clinical implications. Rev Clin Gerontol. 2002;12:10917.
Mathias S, Nayak US, Isaacs B. Balance in elderly patients: the get-up and
go test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986;67:3879.
Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed Up & Go: a test of basic functional
mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:1428.
Montero-Odasso M, Schapira M, Soriano ER, Varela M, Kaplan R, Camera LA,
et al. Gait velocity as a single predictor of adverse events in healthy seniors
aged 75 years and older. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2005;60:13049.
Varela PL, Ortiz Saavedra PJ, Chavez JH. Velocidad como indicador de
fragilidad en adultos mayores de la comunidad en Lima, Per. Rev Esp
Geriatr Gerontol. 2010;45:225.
Cesari M, Kritchevsky SB, Penninx BW, Nicklas BJ, Simonsick EM, Newman
AB, et al. Prognostic value of usual gait speed in well-functioning older
peopleresults from the health, aging and body composition study. J Am
Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:167580.
Wennie Huang WN, Perera S, VanSwearingen J, Studenski S. Performance
measures predict onset of activity of daily living difficulty in community-dwelling
older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58:84452.
De LJ, Degryse J, Illiffe S, Mann E, Buntinx F. Family physicians need easy
instruments for frailty. Age Ageing. 2008;37:4845.
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.
Gobbens RJ, van Assen MA. Frailty and its prediction of disability and
health care utilization: the added value of interviews and physical
measures following a self-report questionnaire. Arch Gerontol Geriatr.
2012;55:36979.
Jurschik P, Nunin C, Botigue T, Escobar MA, Lavedan A, Viladrosa M. Prevalence
of frailty and factors associated with frailty in the elderly population of Lleida,
Spain: the FRALLE survey. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012;55:62531.
Osakidetza. Osakidetza. 1-10-2015. Ref Type: Electronic Citation. http://www.
osakidetza.euskadi.eus/r85-phosag01/es. Accesed 10 Jan 2015.
Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment
of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1975;23:43341.
Martnez Dela Iglesia J, Dueas Herrero R, Ons Vilches MC, Aguado
Tabern C, Albert Colomer C, Luque Luque R. Adaptacin y validacin al
castellano del cuestionario de Pfeiffer (SPMSQ) para detectar la existencia
de deterioro cognitivo en personas mayores de 65 aos. Med Clin (Barc).
2001;117:12934.
Ward G, Jagger C, Harper W. A review of instrumental ADL assessments for
use with elderly people. Rev Clin Gerontol. 1998;8:6571.
Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and
instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9:17986.
Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel index
for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:7039.
Cid-Ruzafa J, Damian-Moreno J. [Disability evaluation: Barthels index]. Rev
Esp Salud Publica. 1997;71:12737.
Vergara I, Vrotsou K, Orive M, Gonzalez N, Garcia S, Quintana JM. Factors
related to functional prognosis in elderly patients after accidental hip
fractures: a prospective cohort study. BMC Geriatr. 2014;14:124.
Vergara I, Vrotsou K, Orive M, Garcia-Gutierrez S, Gonzalez N, Las HC, et al.
Wrist fractures and their impact in daily living functionality on elderly
people: a prospective cohort study. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16:11.
Alarcn AT, nzalez Montalvo JI. La escala socio-familiar de gijn, instrumento
til en el hospital general. Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol. 1998;33:1789.
Vergara I, Bilbao A, Orive M, Garcia-Gutierrez S, Navarro G, Quintana JM.
Validation of the spanish version of the Lawton IADL scale for its
application in elderly people. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:130.

Page 8 of 8

30. Martin LI, Lopez-Torres Hidalgo JD, Gorronogoitia IA, De-Hoyos Alonso MC,
Baena Diez JM, Herreros HY. [Preventive activities in the elderly]. Aten
Primaria. 2014;46 Suppl 4:7581.
31. Badia X. Estudios sobre la calidad de vida de personas afectas de diferentes
patologas. Edited by Ministerio de Sanidad y poltica social. 2009. Madrid.
Ref Type: Report.
32. Steyerberg EW. Clinical prediction models. Springer; 2009. ISBN 978-0-38777243-1 DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-77244-8.
33. Herman T, Giladi N, Hausdorff JM. Properties of the timed up and go test:
more than meets the eye. Gerontology. 2011;57:20310.
34. Santos-Eggimann B, Cuenoud P, Spagnoli J, Junod J. Prevalence of frailty in
middle-aged and older community-dwelling Europeans living in 10
countries. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009;64:67581.
35. Sousa AC, Dias RC, Maciel AC, Guerra RO. Frailty syndrome and associated
factors in community-dwelling elderly in Northeast Brazil. Arch Gerontol
Geriatr. 2012;54:e95e101.
36. Boyd CM, Xue QL, Simpson CF, Guralnik JM, Fried LP. Frailty, hospitalization,
and progression of disability in a cohort of disabled older women. Am J
Med. 2005;118:122531.
37. Rockwood K, Hogan DB, MacKnight C. Conceptualisation and
measurement of frailty in elderly people. Drugs Aging. 2000;17:295302.
38. Romero-Ortuno R. The frailty instrument for primary care of the survey of
health, ageing and retirement in Europe predicts mortality similarly to a
frailty index based on comprehensive geriatric assessment. Geriatr Gerontol
Int. 2013;13:497504.
39. Romero-Ortuno R, OShea D, Kenny RA. The SHARE frailty instrument for
primary care predicts incident disability in a European population-based
sample. Qual Prim Care. 2011;19:3019.
40. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Graney MJ, Elam JT, Burns R, Akins DE. A
randomized, controlled trial of a geriatric assessment unit in a community
rehabilitation hospital. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:15728.
41. Vellas B, Balardy L, Gillette-Guyonnet S, Van Abellan KG, Ghisolfi-Marque A,
Subra J, et al. Looking for frailty in community-dwelling older persons: the
gerontopole frailty screening tool (GFST). J Nutr Health Aging. 2013;17:
62931.
42. van Kempen JA, Schers HJ, Melis RJ, Olde Rikkert MG. Construct validity and
reliability of a two-step tool for the identification of frail older people in
primary care. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:17683.
43. van Kempen JA, Schers HJ, Philp I, Olde Rikkert MG, Melis RJ. Predictive validity
of a two-step tool to map frailty in primary care. BMC Med. 2015;13:287.
44. Fewtrell MS, Kennedy K, Singhal A, Martin RM, Ness A, Hadders-Algra M, et al.
How much loss to follow-up is acceptable in long-term randomised trials and
prospective studies? Arch Dis Child. 2008;93:45861.
45. The Epidemiology of Aging. Springer; 2012. ISBN 978-94-007-5060-9 DOI 10.
1007/978-94-007-5061-6.

Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central

and we will help you at every step:
We accept pre-submission inquiries
Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal
We provide round the clock customer support
Convenient online submission
Thorough peer review
Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services
Maximum visibility for your research
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit