Older adults’ understandings and perspectives on frailty in community and residential aged care: an interpretive description
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite growing interest in frailty as a significant public health challenge, comparatively little is known about how older adults perceive and experience frailty, limiting the effectiveness of strategies to improve frailty management and prevention. The objective of this study was to understand how older people, including frail older persons in residential aged care, perceive and understand frailty through an interpretive-descriptive qualitative study. SETTING: Aged care facility, community-based university for older persons and an aged care auxiliary care group in a large metropolitan centre in South Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 39 non-frail, prefrail, frail and very frail South Australian older adults. METHODS: Seven focus groups were conducted. Participants completed one of two frailty instruments depending on setting and indicated whether they self-identified as frail. Data were analysed inductively and thematically by two independent investigators. RESULTS: Frailty was described according to three schemas of (1) the old and frail: a static state near the end of life; (2) frailty at any age: a disability model; and (3) frailty as a loss of independence: control, actions and identity. In addition, a theme was identifying linking mindset, cognition and emotion to frailty. The term frailty was viewed negatively and was often implicated with personal choice. There was little correlation between frailty assessments and whether participants self-identified as frail. CONCLUSIONS: Aside from a disability model, views of frailty as unmodifiable permeated older persons' diverse perspectives on frailty and are likely to impact health behaviours. To our knowledge, this is among the largest qualitative studies examining consumer perceptions of frailty and contributes a clinically relevant schema linking age, prevention and modifiability from a consumer perspective.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".