Cited by 286Frailty in Older AdultsChronic Disease Management StrategiesAging, Health, and Disability

Comparing models of frailty: the Health and Retirement Study

Open access
Cigolle, Christine T., Ofstedal, Mary Beth, Tian, Zhiyi, Blaum, Caroline S.·2009·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To operationalize and compare three models of frailty, each representing a distinct theoretical view of frailty: as deficiencies in function (Functional Domains model), as an index of health burden (Burden model), and as a biological syndrome (Biologic Syndrome model). DESIGN: Cross‐sectional analysis. SETTING: 2004 wave of the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative, longitudinal health interview survey. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 65 and older (N=11,113) living in the community and in nursing homes in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: The outcome measure was the presence of frailty, as defined according to each frailty model. Covariates included chronic diseases and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Almost one‐third (30.2%) of respondents were frail according to at least one model; 3.1% were frail according to all three models. The Functional Domains model showed the least overlap with the other models. In contrast, 76.1% of those classified as frail according to the Biologic Syndrome model and 72.1% of those according to the Burden model were also frail according to at least one other model. Older adults identified as frail according to the different models differed in sociodemographic and chronic disease characteristics. For example, the Biologic Syndrome model demonstrated substantial associations with older age (adjusted odds ratio (OR)=10.6, 95% confidence interval (CI)=6.1–18.5), female sex (OR=1.7, 95% CI=1.2–2.5), and African‐American ethnicity (OR=2.1, % CI=1.0–4.4). CONCLUSION: Different models of frailty, based on different theoretical constructs, capture different groups of older adults. The different models may represent different frailty pathways or trajectories to adverse outcomes such as disability and death.

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 · 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02225.x

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The continuous frailty index demonstrated greater discriminatory ability for people with moderate and severe frailty than the categorical phenotype model.

    “The continuous FI demonstrated greater discriminatory ability for people with moderate and severe frailty when compared to the categorical phenotype model”

    From Frailty in elderly people (2013) · cites this paper as [84]

  • The finding of greater discriminatory ability of the continuous frailty index has been independently validated.

    “a finding that has been independently validated (84).”

    From Frailty in elderly people (2013) · cites this paper as [84]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Orme JG, Reis J, Herz EJ. Factorial and discriminant validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) scale. J Clin Psychol 1986;42:28- 33.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cigolle, C. T., Ofstedal, M. B., Tian, Z., & Blaum, C. S.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-04-28
Volume
57
Issue
5
Pages
830-839
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W1525217260
Cited by
286
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 17
FWCI
10.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1f32ag027649-01)
  • National Institute on Aging (R01 AG021493A, R01AG021493, 1F32AG027649-01, F32 AG027649)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
Keywords
frailty, frailty models, older adults, chronic disease, nursing home residents, health burden, disability, mortality
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Chronic Disease, Cross-Sectional Studies, Demography, Disability Evaluation, Health Surveys, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Models, Theoretical, United States, Geriatric Assessment, Logistic Models, Frail Elderly

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