Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 402

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Conceptualizations of frailty in relation to older adults

Markle‐Reid, Maureen, Browne, Gina·2003·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Aim. The aim of this article is to discuss the concept of frailty and its adequacy in identifying and describing older adults as frail. Background. Despite the dramatic increase in use of the term ‘frailty’ over the past two decades, there is a lack of consensus in the literature about its meaning and use, and no clear conceptual guidelines for identifying and describing older adults as frail. Differences in theoretical perspectives will influence policy decisions regarding eligibility for, and allocation of, scarce health care resources among older adults. Method. The article presents a literature review and synthesis of definitions and conceptual models of frailty in relation to older adults. The first part of the paper is a summary of the synonyms, antonyms and definitions of the term frailty. The second part is a critical evaluation of conceptual models of frailty. Six conceptual models are analysed on the basis of four main categories of assumptions about: (1) the nature of scientific knowledge; (2) the level of analysis; (3) the ageing process; (4) the stability of frailty. The implications of these are discussed in relation to clinical practice, policy and research. Conclusion. The review gives guidelines for a new theoretical approach to the concept of frailty in older adults: (1) it must be a multidimensional concept that considers the complex interplay of physical, psychological, social and environmental factors; (2) the concept must not be age‐related, suggesting a negative and stereotypical view of ageing; (3) the concept must take into account an individual's context and incorporate subjective perceptions; (4) the concept must take into account the contribution of both individual and environmental factors.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02767.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 402

Metadata

Authors
Markle‐Reid, M., & Browne, G.
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-09-03
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
58-68
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W1987841364
Cited by
402
References
1
FWCI
4.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conceptualizations of frailty in relation to older adults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02767.x
The paper
Markle‐Reid, M., & Browne, G. (2003). Conceptualizations of frailty in relation to older adults. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02767.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.