Identification of Frailty in Primary Care: Feasibility and Acceptability of Recommended Case Finding Tools Within a Primary Care Integrated Seniors’ Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Case finding for frailty is recommended as part of routine clinical practice. We aimed to test feasibility and acceptability of three recommended case finding tools in primary care as part of an integrated seniors’ program. Method: Program of Research to Integrate Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy-7 (PRISMA-7), 4-m walk test, and electronic frailty index (eFI) were used as frailty case finding tools for a target population of community-dwelling seniors ≥65 years of age enrolled in a seniors’ program within an academic primary care clinic in Alberta, Canada. Feasibility was measured by percent completion rate and requirements for training/equipment/space/time, and acceptability by health care providers was measured using focus groups. Results: Eighty-five patients underwent case finding and 16 health care providers participated in the focus groups. Completion rate for PRISMA-7, 4-m walk test, and eFI was 97.6%, 93%, and 100%, respectively. No special training or equipment was required for PRISMA-7; brief training, equipment, and space were required for 4-m walk test. Both tools took less than 5 min to complete. Despite eFI requiring 10 to 20 min/patient chart, providers found it less intrusive. Conclusion: Despite feasibility of the tests, acceptance was higher for tools with minimal clinic interruption, low requirements for resources, and those with added benefit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".