Concordances and differences between a unidimensional and multidimensional assessment of frailty: a cross-sectional study

Table 4 Characteristics of the frail samples according to the frailty measurements (CFAI and Fried Phenotype)

			Solely CFAI High frail	CFAI and FP (High-) frail	Solely FP Frail	p-value
			N = 12	N = 23	N = 15	p-value
Age	mean		70.00	75.04	76.67	0.141
Sense of Mastery (0–5)	mean		3.36	2.94¹	3.76¹	0.003*
Meaning in Life (0–5)	mean		3.67	3.53	3.87	0.427
Life Satisfaction (0–5)	mean		2.82²	3.07³	3.92²³	0.001*
Social Inclusion (0–5)	mean		3.58	3.87	4.38	0.199
Ageing Well in Place (0–5)	mean		4.17	3.74⁴	4.53⁴	0.081¥
Feeling Frail (0–5)	mean		3.25	3.17	2.73	0.465
Net income in Euro’s	N					0.021
		500–999	2	2	0
		1000–1499	9	10	4
		1500–1999	0	4	5
		2000 or more	1	5	4
Physical activities	N					0.001
		never	2	18	11
		Rarely	1	2	0
		monthly	1	1	0
		weekly	8	2	4

Continuous variables were tested by ANOVA (Post hoc: Tukey HSD), while ordinal variables were tested by the Kruskall-Wallis test (post hoc Kendall tau). CFAI=Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Index, FP = Fried Phenotype. p < 0.05 is considered significant. p < 0.10 is considered a trend. Superscripts with the same number indicate a significant (mean) difference between two pairs of groups. Net income and physical activity are significant different between solely CFAI and the two other groups (solely FP/CFAI and FP). Except age, all continuous scales ranged from 0 indicating a low level of … (e.g., mastery), till 5 indicating a high level of … (e.g., mastery)

ISSN: 1471-2318