Skip to main content

Table 2 Characterization of the cluster of individuals and comparison between frail clusters

From: Description of frail older people profiles according to four screening tools applied in primary care settings: a cross sectional analysis

 

Cluster 1a

Cluster 2b

Cluster 3b

Cluster 4b

p-valuec

N

263

199

183

220

 

Age, years; mean (SD)

77.3 (4.6)

78.9 (5.8)

78.4 (4.7)

78.2 (4.5)

0.314

Sex (female)

110 (42)

137 (69)

87 (47)

124 (56)

<0.001

Income (≤€1200)

132 (53)

140 (74)

109 (61)

127 (62)

0.012

Body mass index >30 kg/m2

84 (32)

90 (45)

56 (31)

91 (42)

0.010

Low physical activity level

8 (3)

63 (32)

22 (12)

18 (8)

<0.001

Visual impairments

19 (7)

47 (24)

36 (20)

28 (13)

0.015

Hearing impairments

37 (14)

50 (25)

42 (23)

38 (17)

0.136

Falls in the last year

60 (23)

85 (43)

61 (33)

50 (23)

<0.001

Age-adjusted CCI; mean (SD)

4.1 (1.2)

4.9 (1.4)

4.8 (1.6)

4.3 (1.3)

<0.001

Self-perceived health status

    

<0.001

 Good

240 (91)

90 (45)

126 (69)

178 (81)

 

 Poor

23 (9)

109 (55)

57 (31)

42 (19)

 

Number of drugs; median (Q1, Q3)

4 (2,6)

7 (5,9)

6 (4,8)

5 (3,6)

<0.001

Polypharmacy (≥4 drugs)

146 (55)

170 (86)

141 (77)

138 (63)

<0.001

Frailty

     

TUG (Frail)

0 (0)

199 (100)

21 (11)

108 (49)

<0.001

SPPB (Frail)

0 (0)

199 (100)

78 (43)

203 (92)

<0.001

TFI (Frail)

0 (0)

138 (69)

110 (61)

0 (0)

<0.001

GFST (Frail)

0 (0)

143 (73)

119 (65)

0 (0)

<0.001

  1. Data are presented as frequencies (percentages), n (%), otherwise stated; N = number of observations; CCI Charlson Comorbidity Index, TUG Timed Up and Go Test, SPPB Short Physical Performance Battery, TFI Tilburg Frailty Indicator, GFST Gérontopôle Frailty Screening Tool
  2. aCluster 1 = patients categorized as robust by all four studied tools
  3. bClusters 2, 3 and 4 = patients classified as frail by at least one of the tools
  4. cp-values = based on comparisons between Clusters 2, 3 and 4
  5. All variables shown in the table were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05) when comparing robust (Cluster 1) versus frail groups (Clusters 2, 3 and 4)