Skip to main content

Frailty and healthcare utilisation across care settings among community-dwelling older adults in Singapore

Abstract

Background

Frailty is frequently found to be associated with increased healthcare utilisation in western countries, but little is known in Asian population. This study was conducted to investigate the association between frailty and healthcare utilisation in different care settings among community-dwelling older adults in Singapore.

Methods

Data from a population health survey among community-dwelling adults were linked with an administrative database to retrieve data of healthcare utilisation (including government primary care clinic visits, specialised outpatient clinic visits, emergency department visits, day surgery and hospitalisations) occurred during a six-month look-back period and six-month post-baseline respectively. Baseline frailty status was measured using the five-item FRAIL scale, which was categorised into three groups: robust (0), pre-frail (1–2), and frail (3–5). Negative binomial regression was applied to examine the association between frailty with respective healthcare utilisation (dependent variables), controlling for other confounding variables.

Results

In our sample of 701 older adults, 64.8% were of robust health, 27.7% were pre-frail, and 7.6% were frail. Compared to the robust group, frail individuals had a higher rate of specialised outpatient clinic visits (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2–6.5), emergency department visits (IRR: 3.1, 95%CI: 1.1–8.1), day surgery attendances (IRR: 6.4, 95%CI: 1.3–30.9), and hospitalisations (IRR: 6.7, 95%CI: 2.1–21.1) in the six-month period prior to the baseline and in subsequent 6 months (IRR: 3.3, 95%CI: 1.6–7.1; 6.4, 2.4–17.2; 5.8, 1.3–25.8; 13.1, 4.9–35.0; respectively), controlling for covariates.

Conclusions

Frailty was positively associated with the number of specialised outpatient clinic visits, emergency department visits, day surgeries and hospitalisations occurred during 6 months prior to and after the baseline. As frailty is a potentially reversible health state with early screening and intervention, providing preventive activities that delay the onset or progression of frailty should have potential effect on delaying secondary and tertiary care utilisation.

Peer Review reports

Background

Frailty can be defined as ‘a state of vulnerability to adverse outcomes resulting from the accumulation of deficits associated with clinical effects’ [1], and has been shown to be a common phenomenon among older adults [2]. A recent systematic review that gathered data from 21 studies and over 61,500 community-dwelling older adults found that the overall weighted average prevalence of frailty was 10.7% (range: 4.0–59.1%) [2]. With the absolute number of people aged 60 years and over expected to reach 2 billion in 2050 [3], the burden of frailty will increase [4].

In Singapore, 21.4% of the total population consisted of individuals aged 60 years and above in 2019 [5], which is projected to reach 40% by year 2050 [6]. Such drastic rise in both the number and proportion of older population inevitably translate into a surge in the number and proportion of frail individuals [7], which brings various challenges to health care and healthcare delivery as they are recognised as intensive users of health care services [8]. To forge a frailty-ready healthcare system, Singapore has re-organised its public healthcare system from six regional healthcare systems (RHS) into three integrated clusters to allow each cluster to have a fuller range of assets, capabilities, services and networks across different care settings to meet the challenges of population ageing and further care needs [9]. Each RHS is responsible for care integration and providing care to the population in a specific geographical region. Innovative projects have been implemented in each RHS to address the needs of the frail elderly in Singapore [10] but a deeper understanding of the frail older population and their patterns of healthcare utilisation is necessary for better resource planning and intervention prioritisation in public healthcare.

Based on self-reported incidence of healthcare resource utilisation, cross-sectional studies in international literature have found frailty to be associated with an increased likelihood of general practice (adjusted odds ratio (OR): 2.1–4.4), specialist (OR: 1.3–1.8), emergency department (OR: 2.5–6.2) and inpatient (OR: 2.1–3.3) service utilisation [8, 11,12,13]. These findings were also supported by the results from prospective cohort studies [14,15,16] and panel studies [17]. It is recogonised that most studies investigating the associations between frailty and healthcare utilisation were conducted in North American and European countries. As healthcare systems and access to care varies across countries, examining the association between frailty and healthcare utilisation using Singapore data will provide insights in an Asian setting where health seeking behaviours and utilisation patterns could differ.

As the assessment of frailty are typically determined based on the actual or estimated status of the person at the point of assessment, it usually does not account for the presence of acute conditions which might sway the determination of frailty status [18]. This will contribute to the variation in the magnitude of association between frailty and healthcare utilisation in different settings. While individuals who have been frail over a period may have persistently higher healthcare utilisation during retrospective and prospective observation periods, those with frailty caused by transient conditions might only have temporarily higher healthcare utilisation for a short period of time. In prior studies, the association between frailty and healthcare utilisation was explored using either retrospective or prospective data in different population. There is a scarcity of research that examined their associations using both retrospective and prospective utilisation data. As such, little is known about how the magnitude of association differs in different periods of time. This study aims to investigate the association of frailty and healthcare utilisation in community-dwelling older adults aged 60 years and above, with utilisation data collected in two different periods of time: 1) 6 months prior to the baseline frailty assessment, and 2) 6 months after the baseline assessment.

Methods

Study participants

Older adults aged 60 years and over (n = 701) who agreed to use their National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) number to link with administrative database to retrieve healthcare utilisation data were sampled from the Population Health Index (PHI) study, a population-based health survey conducted in the Central Region of Singapore. The baseline data of PHI which were collected during November 2015 to November 2016 were used for this study. The sampling procedure and survey methodology of the baseline PHI study has been described elsewhere [19,20,21]. In brief, eligible participants (Singapore citizens or permanent residents, aged 21 years and above and lived in the selected housing unit for the past 6 months) staying in randomly selected household units in the Central Region of Singapore were identified via door-to-door visits by trained surveyors and one eligible household member was randomly selected using Kish grid [22]. There were 1942 eligible community-dwelling adults recruited and underwent detailed structured interviews for the baseline PHI survey.

The PHI study was approved by the ethics review committee of the National Healthcare Group (NHG) Domain Specific Review Board (Reference Number: 2015/00269). Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants after they were fully informed of the study objectives and procedures.

Frailty assessment

Frailty was determined using the revised five-item FRAIL scale (Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses, & Malnutrition) with the “Malnutrition” replacing the “Loss of weight” in the original FRAIL scale (Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses, & Loss of weight) [23, 24]. Each item is scored either 0 or 1. The revised FRAIL scale is scored from 0 (best) to 5 (worst) and is translated into three categories: robust (0), pre-frail (1–2), and frail (3–5). Similar to other studies [23, 24], we operationalised the FRAIL scale based on information obtained from specific questions included in the PHI survey questionnaire. “Fatigue” was measured by asking how often they felt tired with responses of “more than half the days” or “nearly every day” scored 1. “Resistance” was assessed by asking their difficulty in walking up and down one flight of stairs without using handrail, and “Ambulation” was measured by asking their difficulty in walking around one floor of home or several blocks without aids; “quite a lot” or “cannot do” responses were each scored as 1. “Illness” was scored 1 for those who reported 5 or more illnesses out of 14 illnesses. “Malnutrition” was scored 1 if Body Mass Index (BMI) < 18.5 or MNA screening score < 8 or Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) total score < 17. A complete description of the revised FRAIL scale items’ scoring criteria is provided in Table 1.

Table 1 FRAIL scale items

Healthcare utilisation

The healthcare utilisation data during the retrospective 6-month and prospective 6-month periods were obtained from RHS database [25]. The RHS database contains linked NHG polyclinic visit records, specialist outpatient clinic (SOC) visit records, emergency department (ED) attendance records, day surgery (DS) attendance records and hospital discharge records from three government hospitals - Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital and Institute of Mental Health, chronic disease management system records and mortality records from local registries. The healthcare utilisation data were categorised according to the main healthcare settings into polyclinic visits, SOC visits, ED visits, DS attendances and hospitalisations. Polyclinic visits refer to doctor consultation and technical visits made by the individual to any of the nine linked NHG polyclinics. SOC visits and ED visits refer to visits to the specialists in outpatient clinics and the emergency rooms located within three government hospitals, respectively. Similarly, DS attendances refer to surgical procedures performed in day surgery rooms where patients were discharged on the same day without admitting to inpatient wards; and hospitalisations refer to inpatient episodes with at least one overnight stay at these hospitals. The survey data and healthcare utilisation data were linked using NRIC numbers which were removed thereafter for data analysis.

Other variables

We controlled for the confounding effects of covariates to examine the independent effect of frailty on the rates of healthcare utilisation in different care settings. These covariates included demographic factors (age, gender (male / female), Chinese (yes / no), marital status (single / married / widowed or divorced), living arrangement (alone / with others)) [8, 26] and smoking status (non-smoker / past smoker / current smoker) [17]. Highest education level (no formal education / primary / secondary or above) and self-perceived money sufficiency for basic living needs (sufficient / insufficient) were also included as control variables as they are enabling factors which influence individuals’ health seeking behaviours and healthcare utilisation [8, 27, 28].

Multimorbidity and disability, which are related to but also distinct from frailty [29, 30], were commonly adjusted in studies examining the association between frailty and healthcare utilisation [8, 14]. We controlled for multimorbidity as a dichotomous variable (yes / no) which was defined as the presence of two or more of the following 17 chronic conditions: dyslipidemia, high blood pressure, diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), heart attack / ischemic heart disease, heart failure, stroke / transient ischemic attack, asthma, chronic bronchitis / emphysema / chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cancer, osteoarthritis / gout / rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, depression, anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, dementia / Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease [20] (The prevalence of individual chronic diseases among the study participants is presented in the Supplementary Table S1). Disability, which was determined based on whether assistance was required in any of the ten activities of daily living (ADLs) (yes / no) measured using the Modified Barthel Index [31], was also controlled in the models.

Statistical analysis

Characteristics of the study population were described using mean and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables, and frequency and percentages for categorical variables. Mean and SD were used to describe healthcare utilisation in every frailty group. To examine the differences in characteristics and utilisation across frailty groups, one-way analysis of covariance (ANOVA) tests (normally distributed) or Kruskal-Wallis H tests (non-normally distributed) were performed for continuous variables, and chi-squared tests were conducted for categorical variables.

Healthcare utilisation by settings are count variables characterised by a point mass at zero followed by a right-skewed, discrete distribution, and non-negative values [32, 33]. Given the over-dispersion of data (the conditional variance is larger than the conditional mean), a negative binomial distribution was chosen over a Poisson regression [34]. Healthcare utilisation in five settings formed five different dependent variables and were analysed independently; and the three-level frailty category (robust, pre-frail, frail) was the independent variable of interest. We further adjusted for control variables including demographic factors (including age, gender, ethnic group, marital status, and living arrangement), socioeconomic status (highest education level, self-perceived money insufficiency), smoking status, multimorbidity, and disability. The results were presented as incidence-rate ratios (IRRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were performed using Stata/SE 16.1. A p value of less than 0.05 was set as the level of significance.

Results

Characteristics of study population

Our sample comprised 701 older adults. Their mean age was 70.5 years (SD 8.2). The majority were of Chinese ethnicity (84%), female (57%) and were living with others (81%). The prevalence of multimorbidity and disability (assistance required for any ADLs) among this population was 70 and 15%, respectively. The proportion of pre-frail and frail individuals measured using the revised FRAIL scale was 28 and 7%, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2 Characteristics of participants at baseline by frailty groups, n (%)

Comparing the profile across the three frailty groups (Table 2), we showed that frail elderly were significantly older, and had a higher proportion with multimorbidity or required assistance in any ADLs. A significantly lower proportion of frail elderly were single, of Chinese ethnicity; and a higher proportion had no formal education and perceived that they had insufficiency financial means for their daily needs.

Association between frailty and healthcare utilisation

Healthcare utilisation in 6-month period prior to the baseline

Compared to older adults in robust health, significantly higher proportions of SOC and ED visits, DS attendances as well as hospitalisations were observed in those who were pre-frail and frail (Table 3). The mean number of SOC visits, ED visits and hospitalisations also increased corresponding with the increase in frailty levels (all p < 0.001). Pre-frail older adults were the dominant users of the polyclinic services with about 42% having polyclinic visits.

Table 3 Associations between frailty and healthcare utilisation in different settings during 6-month period prior to the baseline

After adjusting for all covariates including multimorbidity and disability, the negative binomial regression results showed that frailty was statistically associated with the adjusted rates of SOC visits, ED visits, DS attendances and hospitalisations in 6-month period prior to the baseline. Relative to the robust group, individuals who were frail had 2.8 times the rate of SOC visits; had 3.1 times the rate of ED visits; and had a rate 6.4 times and 6.7 times greater for DS attendances and hospitalisations respectively (Table 3). Pre-frail individuals had 1.7 times and 2.1 times the rate of SOC visits and hospitalisations respectively compared to their robust counterpart.

Healthcare utilisation during 6-month period after the baseline

Similarly, during the 6-month period after the baseline, significantly higher proportion and mean number of SOC and ED visits, as well as hospitalisations in pre-frail and frail older adults were observed compared to their robust peers (Table 4). After adjusted for all covariates, frail older adults had 3.3 times the rate of SOC visits, 6.4 times the rate of ED visits, and 5.8 times and 13.1 times the rate of DS attendances and hospitalisations respectively compared to their robust counterpart during the 6-month period after the baseline. No significant difference in rate was observed for polyclinic visits. Pre-frail individuals had 1.5 times, 2.6 times and 3.8 times higher rate of polyclinic visits, ED visits and hospitalisations respectively compared to their robust counterpart (Table 4).

Table 4 Associations between frailty and healthcare utilisation in different settings during the 6-month period after the baseline

Discussion

We examined the associations between frailty and healthcare utilisation in different public healthcare settings among community-dwelling adults aged 60 years and above in Singapore. Although the issue of frailty is predominant among people aged 70 years and above, the public health system in Singapore proactively puts in efforts and resources in identifying the pre-frail individuals and those at risk of frailty, and extends services to people who are aged 60 years and above when designing programmes and interventions. As such, we included participants aged 60 years and above as the study population. The results showed that the association between frailty and healthcare utilisation varied in different settings. While the frail elderly in the community had significantly higher proportion and number of SOC visits, ED visits, day surgery attendances and hospitalisations in the 6-month period prior to and after the baseline, their utilisation of public primary care services was lower relative to their pre-frail or robust peers.

Prior studies consistently reported that increasing frailty is associated with substantial increase in hospital admissions, measured either retrospectively or prospectively [8, 16, 35]. We also observed that the frail older adults in the study had more hospitalisations than their robust and pre-frail peers, regardless whether the hospitalisations occurred prior to or after the baseline. Their association is persistent even after adjusting for the socio-demographics, multimorbidity and disability. Among the healthcare service utilisation in the five different care settings, our study found that frailty had the most significant impact on hospitalisations in both 6-month period prior to and after the baseline, which is consistent with findings reported in prior studies [8, 12, 36]. The association between frailty and hospitalisations indicates that frail elderly in Singapore tend to present to the healthcare system, especially tertiary care, when they are in a more severe stage of frailty [37].

Unlike prior studies which reported that frailty had a positive association with probability of use of primary care services in general practitioner clinics [8, 15, 16, 36], our study found frail individuals did not have higher risk of utilising more polyclinic services than their robust counterparts. Instead, the older adults who were in the pre-frail stage tended to use more polyclinic services. This suggests that when older adults deteriorate from robust health stage to pre-frail stage, their use of primary care services increase significantly; and when older adults are in a more severe stage of frailty, their needs may shift towards increased specialist care services. However, the results should be interpreted with caution as only about 20% of the total primary care services in Singapore are provided by polyclinics and the left 80% are provided by private general practitioners (GPs). Although polyclinics provide a relatively larger percentage of care for patients with chronic and more complex conditions, the omission of GP utilisation data in the RHS database makes it challenging to infer the association between frailty and the total primary care utilisation.

Although the association between frailty and healthcare utilisation of specialist outpatient care is less investigated compared with that of inpatient services, prior studies do suggest that frailty has positive association with the use of specialist outpatient services [8, 38]. Our study provides additional support for their association, regardless whether the SOC visits occurred in 6 months prior to or after the baseline. This reflects that an increase in the degree of frailty among older adults corresponds with a greater need for comprehensive and specialised health care services [38, 39].

The association between frailty and number of surgical procedures performed in DS rooms were scarcely examined separately in prior studies. A relatively higher proportion and rate of DS attendances among frail individuals was observed in the study, with no significant difference in associations between 6 months prior to and after the baseline. However, we are unable to draw any causal conclusion between frailty and DS attendances. Although the degree of frailty prior to general surgery is increasingly used for risk-stratification, as most of the DS procedures are considered low-stress procedures for older adults, the findings in the study suggests that frail individuals have a greater need for day surgeries. As pre-operative frailty is associated with adverse clinical outcomes even for low-stress procedures [40], comprehensive frailty screening should be conducted prior to surgical procedures not only for optimization before surgery but also for targeted interventions before and after surgery.

It has been well established that multimorbidity is bidirectionally associated with frailty [41] and greater healthcare utilisation [42]. A recent study suggests that frailty may be directly related to kidney function [43]. We also observed that CKD, which accounted for 20% of the multimorbidity, was also highly prevalent among frail groups (49%). Our result showed consistent associations between multimorbidity and number of polyclinics and SOC visits in both 6-month period prior to and after the baseline. However, the associations between multimorbidity and number of ED and DS attendances observed in these two periods were controversial, and no association was observed between multimorbidity and hospitalisation. This could probably be explained by the prevalence of individual chronic conditions that were used to define multimorbidity. As dyslipidaemia and high blood pressure were the most prevalent chronic conditions among the study population with prevalence of 66 and 64% respectively, the multimorbidity was highly attributed to either of the two conditions (high blood pressure 84% and dyslipidaemia 88%), which are usually monitored in primary care settings or SOCs. While polytherapy is often mandatory in the management of multimorbidity [44], therapeutic decisions for elderly people should be approached cautiously as a more elevated polytherapy index is associated with the development of frailty [45] and increased healthcare utilisation.

Strengths and limitations

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the association between frailty and patterns of healthcare utilisation in different care settings in Singapore. We examined the association using both retrospective and prospective utilisation data and found consistent relationship between frailty and healthcare utilisation in respective settings. However, as there is still some uncertainty whether frailty occurred before or after healthcare utilisation, the claim of causal inferences is limited.

The analyses presented in the study used number of hospitalisations to capture the inpatient utilisation. It is acknowledged that number of hospitalisations is a partial indicator of inpatient utilisation, length of stay, which also reflects another important aspect of inpatient utilisation [46], was not measured.

The healthcare utilisation data were derived from one RHS database, as such, healthcare utilisation in other RHS, GPs, private SOCs and hospitals, as well as home care services provided by Voluntary Welfare Organisations were not included. This may cause under-estimation of the association between frailty and healthcare utilisation. However, as the participants were the residents in the region with their health entrusted to the respective RHS, the majority of their utilisation in public healthcare services should have been captured and serve the purpose of understanding the patterns of service delivery in these five care settings for older people with different frailty status within the defined geographical region served by the RHS.

Conclusions

Frailty was positively associated with SOC visits, ED visits, DS attendances and hospitalisations during 6-month period prior to or after the baseline among community-dwelling older adults. Frail individuals tended to have higher rate of SOC and ED visits, DS attendances and hospitalisations compared to their robust counterpart. As frailty is a potentially reversible health state with early screening and intervention, identifying the pre-frail and frail elderly in the community, and providing effective interventions at early stage could be an effective strategy of reducing or delaying utilisation of secondary and tertiary care services.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ADLs:

Activities of daily living

ANOVA:

Analysis of covariance

BMI:

Body mass index

CI:

Confidence interval

CKD:

Chronic kidney disease

COPD:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

DS:

Day surgery

ED:

Emergency departments

GPs:

General practitioners

IRR:

Incidence rate ratio

MNA:

Mini Nutritional Assessment

NHG:

National Healthcare Group

NRIC:

National Registration Identity Card

OR:

Odds ratio

PHI:

Population Health Index

RHS:

Regional healthcare system

SD:

Standard deviation

SOC:

Specialist outpatient clinic

References

  1. 1.

    Howlett SE, Rockwood K. New horizons in frailty: ageing and the deficit-scaling problem. Age Ageing. 2013;42:416–23.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Collard RM, Boter H, Schoevers RA, Oude Voshaar RC. Prevalence of frailty in community-dwelling older persons: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60:1487–92.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    WHO WHO. Facts about ageing. Geneva: WHO; 2014. http://www.who.int/ageing/about/facts/en/. Accessed 18 Feb 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Buckinx F, Rolland Y, Reginster J-Y, Ricour C, Petermans J, Bruyère O. Burden of frailty in the elderly population: perspectives for a public health challenge. Arch Public Health. 2015;73:19.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Department of Statistics. Singapore residents by age group, ethnic group and sex. Population and population structure. 2020. http://www.tablebuilder.singstat.gov.sg/publicfacing/createDataTable.action?refId=14911.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World population ageing 2017 - highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/397). New York: the United Nations; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hajek A, Bock J-O, Saum K-U, Matschinger H, Brenner H, Holleczek B, et al. Frailty and healthcare costs-longitudinal results of a prospective cohort study. Age Ageing. 2018;47:233–41.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Roe L, Normand C, Wren M-A, Browne J, O’Halloran AM. The impact of frailty on healthcare utilisation in Ireland: evidence from the Irish longitudinal study on ageing. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17:203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-017-0579-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ministry of Health. Reorganisation of healthcare system into three integrated clusters to better meet future healthcare needs. Singapore: Ministry of Health Singapore; 2017. News Highlights. https://www.moh.gov.sg/news-highlights/details/reorganisation-of-healthcare-system-into-three-integrated-clusters-to-better-meet-future-healthcare-needs. Accessed 25 Mar 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lim WS, Wong SF, Leong I, Choo P, Pang WS. Forging a frailty-ready healthcare system to meet population ageing. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14:e1448.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Dent E, Hoon E, Karnon J, Newbury J, Kitson A, Beilby J. Frailty and health service use in rural South Australia. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2016;62:53–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hoeck S, François G, Geerts J, Van der Heyden J, Vandewoude M, Van Hal G. Health-care and home-care utilization among frail elderly persons in Belgium. Eur J Pub Health. 2012;22:671–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Rochat S, Cumming RG, Blyth F, Creasey H, Handelsman D, Le Couteur DG, et al. Frailty and use of health and community services by community-dwelling older men: the Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project. Age Ageing. 2010;39:228–33.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ensrud KE, Kats AM, Schousboe JT, Taylor BC, Cawthon PM, Hillier TA, et al. Frailty phenotype and healthcare costs and utilization in older women. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66:1276–83.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Simpson KN, Seamon BA, Hand BN, Roldan CO, Taber DJ, Moran WP, et al. Effect of frailty on resource use and cost for Medicare patients. J Comp Eff Res. 2018;7:817–25.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Gobbens RJJ, van Assen MALM, Luijkx KG, Schols JMGA. Predictive validity of the Tilburg frailty indicator: disability, health care utilization, and quality of life in a population at risk. The Gerontologist. 2012;52:619–31.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Chan A, Raman P, Ma S, Malhotra R. Loneliness and all-cause mortality in community-dwelling elderly Singaporeans. Demogr Res. 2015;S15:1361–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Hogan DB, Maxwell CJ, Afilalo J, Arora RC, Bagshaw SM, Basran J, et al. A scoping review of frailty and acute care in middle-aged and older individuals with recommendations for future research. Can Geriatr J. 2017;20:22–37.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Ge L, Ong R, Yap CW, Heng BH. Effects of chronic diseases on health-related quality of life and self-rated health among three adult age groups. Nurs Health Sci. 2018;21(2):214–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Ge L, Yap CW, Heng BH. Sex differences in associations between multimorbidity and physical function domains among community-dwelling adults in Singapore. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0197443.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Ge L, Yap CW, Ong R, Heng BH. Social isolation, loneliness and their relationships with depressive symptoms: a population-based study. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0182145.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Kish L. A procedure for objective respondent selection within the household. J Am Stat Assoc. 1949;44:380–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Abellan van Kan G, Rolland YM, Morley JE, Vellas B. Frailty: toward a clinical definition. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2008;9:71–2.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Morley JE, Malmstrom TK, Miller DK. A simple frailty questionnaire (FRAIL) predicts outcomes in middle aged African Americans. J Nutr Health Aging. 2012;16:601.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Gunapal PPG, Kannapiran P, Teow KL, Zhu Z, Xiaobin You A, Saxena N, et al. Setting up a regional health system database for seamless population health management in Singapore. Proc Singapore Healthc. 2016;25:27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Peters LL, Burgerhof JGM, Boter H, Wild B, Buskens E, Slaets JPJ. Predictive validity of a frailty measure (GFI) and a case complexity measure (IM-E-SA) on healthcare costs in an elderly population. J Psychosom Res. 2015;79:404–11.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Kuuire VZ, Bisung E, Rishworth A, Dixon J, Luginaah I. Health-seeking behaviour during times of illness: a study among adults in a resource poor setting in Ghana. J Public Health. 2015;38:fdv176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Low L, Tay W, Ng M, Tan S, Liu N, Lee K. Frequent hospital admissions in Singapore: clinical risk factors and impact of socioeconomic status. Singap Med J. 2018;59:39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol Med Sci. 2001;56A:M146–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/56.3.M146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Fried LP, Ferrucci L, Darer J, Williamson JD, Anderson G. Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty, and comorbidity: implications for improved targeting and care. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004;59:255–63.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:703–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Diehr P, Yanez D, Ash A, Hornbrook M, Lin DY. Methods for analyzing health care utilization and costs. Annu Rev Public Health. 1999;20:125–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Sarma S, Simpson W. A microeconometric analysis of Canadian health care utilization. Health Econ. 2006;15:219–39.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Payne EH, Gebregziabher M, Hardin JW, Ramakrishnan V, Egede LE. An empirical approach to determine a threshold for assessing overdispersion in Poisson and negative binomial models for count data. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 2018;47:1722–38.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Ng TP, Feng L, Nyunt MSZ, Larbi A, Yap KB. Frailty in older persons: multisystem risk factors and the Frailty Risk Index (FRI). J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014;15:635–42.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Han L, Clegg A, Doran T, Fraser L. The impact of frailty on healthcare resource use: a longitudinal analysis using the clinical practice research Datalink in England. Age Ageing. 2019;48:665–71.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Chen CY, Gan P, How CH. Approach to frailty in the elderly in primary care and the community. Singap Med J. 2018;59:240–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Tan LF, Lim ZY, Choe R, Seetharaman S, Merchant R. Screening for frailty and sarcopenia among older persons in medical outpatient clinics and its associations with healthcare burden. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18:583–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S, Rikkert MO, Rockwood K. Frailty in elderly people. Lancet. 2013;381:752–62.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Shinall MC, Arya S, Youk A, Varley P, Shah R, Massarweh NN, et al. Association of preoperative patient frailty and operative stress with postoperative mortality. JAMA Surg. 2020;155:e194620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Vetrano DL, Palmer K, Marengoni A, Marzetti E, Lattanzio F, Roller-Wirnsberger R, et al. Frailty and multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2019;74:659–66.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Palladino R, Tayu Lee J, Ashworth M, Triassi M, Millett C. Associations between multimorbidity, healthcare utilisation and health status: evidence from 16 European countries. Age Ageing. 2016;45:431–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Coppolino G, Bolignano D, Gareri P, Ruberto C, Andreucci M, Ruotolo G, et al. Kidney function and cognitive decline in frail elderly: two faces of the same coin? Int Urol Nephrol. 2018;50:1505–10.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Gujjarlamudi HB. Polytherapy and drug interactions in elderly. J Midlife Health. 2016;7:105–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Gutiérrez-Valencia M, Izquierdo M, Cesari M, Casas-Herrero Á, Inzitari M, Martínez-Velilla N. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;84:1432–44.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Hubbard RE, Peel NM, Samanta M, Gray LC, Mitnitski A, Rockwood K. Frailty status at admission to hospital predicts multiple adverse outcomes. Age Ageing. 2017;46:801–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to Mr. Teow Kiok Liang for granting permission to link PHI survey data with RHS utilisation data.

Funding

This work was supported by National Healthcare Group Pte Ltd. in the form of salaries for all authors. The funder had no role in / influence on study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

LG conceived and designed the study, analysed and interpreted the data, drafted the first version of the article and revised it. CWY conceptualised the revised FRAIL scale, interpreted the data, and revised the article. BHH obtained funding, interpreted the data and revised the article. WST conceived the study, interpreted the data, reviewed and substantively revised the article. All authors read and have approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lixia Ge.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The PHI study was approved by the ethics review committee of the National Healthcare Group Domain Specific Review Board (Reference Number: 2015/00269). This ethic approval includes linking PHI survey data with utilisation data. The permission to link PHI survey data with utilisation data in RHS database has been obtained from Principle Investigators of the two studies.

Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants after they were being informed about the study objectives and the safeguards put in place so that confidentiality of the collected data is maintained.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ge, L., Yap, C.W., Heng, B.H. et al. Frailty and healthcare utilisation across care settings among community-dwelling older adults in Singapore. BMC Geriatr 20, 389 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01800-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Frailty
  • Healthcare utilisation
  • Community-dwelling older adults