Cited by 95Frailty in Older AdultsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesChronic Disease Management Strategies

Should we screen for frailty in primary care settings? A fresh perspective on the frailty evidence base: A narrative review

Ambagtsheer, Rachel C., Beilby, Justin J., Visvanathan, Renuka, Dent, Elsa, Yu, Solomon, Braunack-Mayer, Annette J.·2019·Preventive Medicine

Abstract

With older adults living longer, health service providers have increasingly turned their attention towards frailty and its significant consequences for health and well-being. Consequently, frailty screening has gained momentum as a possible health policy answer to the question of what can be done to prevent frailty's onset and progression. However, who should be screened for frailty, where and when remains a subject of extensive debate. The purpose of this narrative review is to explore the dimensions of this question with reference to Wilson and Jungner's time-tested and widely accepted principles for acceptable screening within community settings. Although the balance of the emerging evidence to support frailty screening is promising, significant gaps in the evidence base remain. Consequently, when assessed against Wilson and Jungner's principles, extensive population screening does not appear to be supported by the evidence. However, screening for the purpose of case-finding may prove useful among older adults.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.12.020

Cites

96 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Themes were understood as actively constructed through researcher engagement with the data, rather than passively discovered.

    “Consistent with Braun and Clarke’s [41,42,43,44,45] approach, we understood themes as actively constructed through researcher engagement with the data, rather than passively “discovered.””

    From Home care comparison (2026) · cites this paper as [43]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 99 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ambagtsheer, R. C., Beilby, J. J., Visvanathan, R., Dent, E., Yu, S., & Braunack-Mayer, A. J.
Affiliations
  • Torrens University Australia (AU)
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (AU)
  • Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute (AU)
Corresponding author
Ambagtsheer, Rachel C.
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-02
Volume
119
Pages
63-69
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2906955557
Cited by
95
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12
FWCI
1.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT 1102208)
  • Resthaven Incorporated
  • GTRAC
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
frailty screening, frailty, older adults, primary care, case finding, mass screening, evidence base, frailty prevention
MeSH terms
Frailty, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Health Policy, Humans, Mass Screening, Primary Health Care, Geriatric Assessment, Independent Living

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review