↓ Skip to main content

Determinants of frailty: the added value of assessing medication

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Determinants of frailty: the added value of assessing medication
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00056
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tiago Coelho, Constança Paúl, Robbert J. J. Gobbens, Lia Fernandes

Abstract

This study aims to analyze which determinants predict frailty in general and each frailty domain (physical, psychological, and social), considering the integral conceptual model of frailty, and particularly to examine the contribution of medication in this prediction. A cross-sectional study was designed using a non-probabilistic sample of 252 community-dwelling elderly from three Portuguese cities. Frailty and determinants of frailty were assessed with the Tilburg Frailty Indicator. The amount and type of different daily-consumed medication were also examined. Hierarchical regression analysis were conducted. The mean age of the participants was 79.2 years (±7.3), and most of them were women (75.8%), widowed (55.6%) and with a low educational level (0-4 years: 63.9%). In this study, determinants explained 46% of the variance of total frailty, and 39.8, 25.3, and 27.7% of physical, psychological, and social frailty respectively. Age, gender, income, death of a loved one in the past year, lifestyle, satisfaction with living environment and self-reported comorbidity predicted total frailty, while each frailty domain was associated with a different set of determinants. The number of daily-consumed drugs was independently associated with physical frailty, and the consumption of medication for the cardiovascular system and for the blood and blood-forming organs explained part of the variance of total and physical frailty. The adverse effects of polymedication and its direct link with the level of comorbidities could explain the independent contribution of the amount of prescribed drugs to frailty prediction. On the other hand, findings in regard to medication type provide further evidence of the association of frailty with cardiovascular risk. In the present study, a significant part of frailty was predicted, and the different contributions of each determinant to frailty domains highlight the relevance of the integral model of frailty. The added value of a simple assessment of medication was considerable, and it should be taken into account for effective identification of frailty.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 130 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Student > Master 18 14%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 34 26%
Unknown 25 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 15%
Psychology 10 8%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 30 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2015.
All research outputs
#14,810,408
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#3,353
of 4,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,756
of 265,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#46
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.