How to prevent frailty in older adults

  1. Fried LP. Frailty. In: Hazzard WR, Bierman EL, Blass JP, Ettinger Jr WH, Halter JB, editors. Principles of geriatric medicine and gerontology. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994. p. 1149–55.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56:M146.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Walston J, Hadley EC, Ferrucci L, et al. Research agenda for frailty in older adults: toward a better understanding of physiology and etiology: summary from the American Geriatrics Society/National Institute on Aging research conference on frailty in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54:991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rockwood K, Mitnitski A. Frailty in relation to the accumulation of deficits. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007;62:722–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cigolle CT, Ofstedal MB, Tian Z, et al. Comparing models of frailty: the health and retirement study. J Am Ger Soc. 2009;57:830–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Theou O, Brothers TD, Mitnitski A, et al. Operationalization of frailty using eight commonly used scales and comparison of their ability to predict all-cause mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61:1537–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hamerman D. Toward an understanding of frailty. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:945–50.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cano A, Kurpas D, Bujnowska-Fedak MM, et al. FOCUS: frailty management optimisation through EIPAHA commitments and utilisation of stakeholders’ input – an innovative European project in elderly care. Fam Med Primary Care Rev. 2016;18:373–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. FOCUS website. http://focus-aha.eu/home. Accessed 1 Nov 2018.

  10. Apóstolo J, Cooke R, Bobrowicz-Campos E, et al. Predicting risk and outcomes for frail older adults: an umbrella review of frailty screening tools. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2017;15:1154–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Apostolo J, Cooke R, Bobrowicz-Campos E, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pre-frailty and frailty progression in older adults: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2018;16:140–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. D'Avanzo B, Shaw R, Riva S, et al. Stakeholders’ views and experiences of care and interventions for addressing frailty and pre-frailty: a meta-synthesis of qualitative evidence. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0180127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shaw RL, Gwyther H, Holland C, et al. Understanding frailty: meanings and beliefs about screening and prevention across key stakeholder groups in Europe. Ageing Soc. 2018;38(6):1223–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gwyther H, Shaw R, Bobrowicz-Campos B, et al. Understanding frailty: a qualitative study of European healthcare policy-makers’ approaches to frailty screening and management. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e018653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gwyther H, Cooke R, Shaw R, et al. Perceptions and experiences of frailty interventions: quantitative and qualitative results from a survey of partners within the European innovation partnership on active and healthy ageing (EIP-AHA). Ageing Soc. 2018;38(9):1843–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gwyther H, Bobrowicz-Campos B, Apostolo J, et al. A realist review to understand the efficacy and outcomes of European frailty interventions in the country, healthcare organisational and patient contexts. Health Psychol Rev. 2018;12:382–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Guidelines for WHO Guidelines. Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Version: 10 March 2003. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/68925/1/EIP_GPE_EQC_2003_1.pdf. Accessed 9 Mar 2019.

  18. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust/Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines, Board on Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies; Robin Graham et al. editors. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.

  19. Rich MW, Chyun DA, Skolnick AH, et al. Knowledge gaps in cardiovascular care of older adults: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and American Geriatrics Society: executive summary. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64:2185–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tazkarji B, Lam R, Lee S, et al. Approach to preventive care in the elderly. Can Fam Physician. 2016;62:717–21.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Droz JP, Aapro M, Balducci L, et al. Management of prostate cancer in older patients: updated recommendations of a working group of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e404–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mallery LH, Ransom T, Steeves B, et al. Evidence-informed guidelines for treating frail older adults with type 2 diabetes: from the diabetes care program of Nova Scotia (DCPNS) and the palliative and therapeutic harmonization (PATH) program. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14:801–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Neumann I, Brignardello-Petersen R, Wiercioch W, et al. The GRADE evidence-to-decision framework: a report of its testing and application in 15 international guideline panels. Implement Sci. 2016;11:93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123:A12–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Aklet EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383e394.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE working group. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:1049–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, et al. GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. BMJ. 2016;353:i2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. GRADE-DECIDE. Interactive Evidence to Decision frameworks website https://ietd.epistemonikos.org/#/login. Accessed 24 Apr 2019.

  29. Wong G, Westhorp G, Pawson R, Greenhalgh T. Realist synthesis: RAMESES training materials. London: The RAMESES Project; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  30. European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Aging https://ec.europa.eu/eip/ageing/home_en. Accessed 7 Nov 2018.

  31. Kim CO, Lee KR. Preventive effect of protein-energy supplementation on the functional decline of frail older adults with low socioeconomic status: a community-based randomized controlled study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013;68:309–16.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bonnefoy M, Boutitie F, Mercier C, et al. Efficacy of a home-based intervention programme on the physical activity level and functional ability of older people using domestic services: a randomised study. J Nutr Health Aging. 2012;16:370–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Building European Commitment to Prevent and Tackle Frailty. A Decalogue on Frailty Prevention 2015. Part of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing. https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/active-healthy-ageing/a3_decalogue_2015.pdf. Accessed 7 Nov 2018.

  34. Fit for Frailty. Consensus Best Practice Guidance for the Care of Older People Living in Community and Outpatient Settings. A Report by the British Geriatrics Society in Association with the Royal College of General Practitioners and Age UK. http://www.bgs.org.uk/index.php/fit-for-frailty. Accessed 1 Dec 2017.

  35. Dent E, Lien C, Lim WS, et al. The Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines for the Management of Frailty. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18:564–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ogawa M, Izawa KP, Satomi-Kobayashi S, et al. Impact of delirium on postoperative frailty and long term cardiovascular events after cardiac surgery. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0190359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim DH, Afilalo J, Shi SM, et al. Evaluation of changes in functional status in the year after aortic valve replacement. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(3):383–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Damanti S, Azzolino D, Riva S, Cano A, Marcucci M. FOCUS Project collaborators. PoliFIT-INFOcus: a pilot study exploring how to promote physical activity in older people. Eur J Intern Med. 2018;57:e41–2.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 


Page 2

FOCUS project deliverablesa Evidence type EtD criteria for which the evidence was considered relevant
Systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions on frailty (D4.1.2) [11] Quantitative: A systematic review of randomised studies on interventions on frailty in older people, including health economy studies Benefits, harms, resource use, cost-effectiveness, equity
Review of qualitative studies on frailty interventions with stakeholders (D4.1.3) [12] Qualitative: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on stakeholders’ views and experiences of care and interventions in the context of frailty Outcome importance, value, equity, acceptability, feasibility
Thematic summary of focus groups with stakeholders in three different EU states (D4.1.4) [13] Qualitative: An inductive thematic analysis of semi-structured focus groups and individual interviews in three European countries (Italy, Poland, UK) with five groups of stakeholders, including frail and non-frail older adults, family caregivers, and health and social care professionals Outcome importance, value, equity, acceptability, feasibility
Thematic summary of joint focus groups with EU policy-makers (D4.1.5) [14] Qualitative: An inductive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with seven healthcare policy-makers across Europe Outcome importance, value, equity, acceptability, feasibility
Structured survey of partners within the EIP-AHA (D4.1.7) [15] Mixed: A structured survey seeking the opinions of EIP-AHA partners Outcome importance, value, equity, acceptability, feasibility
Realist review (D4.1.8) [16] Mixed: A realist review combining findings from the different components to examine what works, for whom and in what circumstances Outcome importance, value, equity, acceptability, feasibility
Comprehensive report of the results of the comparative analyses and modelling (FOCUS internal deliverable D5.2.1–5) Quantitative: Comparative analyses of EIP-AHA commitments upon structure, process and outcome indicators; modelling analyses of significant predictors of outcome, health and social care needs and use in the frame of frailty, with projected impact of changes in frailty as a result of interventions Resource use and feasibility (additional considerations)

  1. EIP-AHA European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Aging, EU European Union
  2. aDeliverables are enumerated and titled based on FOCUS Grant Agreement