Measuring Frailty: A Comparison of the Cumulative Deficit Model of Frailty in Survey and Routine Data
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Purpose
Frailty, a state of increased vulnerability to adverse health outcomes, impacts individuals and healthcare systems. The cumulative deficit model provides a flexible frailty measure but its application across diverse data remains underexplored. This study compares frailty indices derived from survey and routine data.
Methods
Frailty indices in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum (N = 1,625,677) and the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) (N = 5190) were compared for adults aged 65+ in England. Deficits were categorised as "one-to-one", "one-to-many", and "one-to-none". Age-sex-standardised deficit prevalence, frailty distribution and associations with demographics were analysed using summary statistics and regression.
Results
Mean frailty index scores were similar (CPRD: 0.13 ± 0.10; ELSA: 0.13 ± 0.12) but differences were observed in the capture of specific deficits. The majority of deficits had a “one-to-none” or “one-to-many” mapping. Among 14 comparable deficits, visual impairment, fractures and heart failure were more common in CPRD, while falls, sleep disturbance and arthritis were more frequent in ELSA. Severe frailty and greater fitness were more prevalent in ELSA than CPRD. Sex and age influenced frailty similarly in both datasets, with frailty index scores increasing more rapidly with age in CPRD.
Conclusion
Differences in the number and types of deficits measured offset each other overall, supporting the cumulative deficit model’s premise that including a sufficient range of deficits does not significantly alter population-level frailty measures. This interchangeability may alleviate concerns about deficit selection, supporting more flexible approaches to population frailty assessment across both survey and routine data.
KEY SUMMARY POINTS
Aim
We assess whether similar frailty prevalence is observed in survey and routine data despite differences in the number, types and prevalence of the individual deficits measured in frailty indices.
Findings
Frailty index calculations using established principles showed strong comparability between survey and routine data. Including a sufficient range of deficits does not significantly alter population-level frailty measures.
Message
The cumulative deficit model’s robustness to deficit selection supports flexible approaches to population frailty assessment across diverse data sources, such as survey and routine data.
