Understanding consumer perceptions of frailty screening to inform knowledge translation and health service improvements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: despite growing support for the clinical application of frailty, including regular frailty screening for older adults, little is known about how older adults perceive frailty screening. The purpose of this study was to examine older adults' perspectives on frailty screening to inform knowledge translation and service improvements for older adults with frailty. RESEARCH DESIGN: interpretive descriptive qualitative design. PARTICIPANTS: a total of 39 non-frail (18%), pre-frail (33%) and frail or very frail (49%) South Australian older adults aged 62-99 years, sampled from community, assisted living and residential aged care settings. METHODS: seven focus groups were conducted and analysed by two independent investigators using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: three themes were identified. First, older adults question the necessity and logic of an objective frailty measure. Second, older adults believe any efforts at frailty screening need to culminate in an action. Third, older adults emphasise that frailty screening needs to be conducted sensitively given negative perceptions of the term frailty and the potential adverse effects of frailty labelling. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: previous screening experiences and underlying beliefs about the nature of frailty as inevitable shaped openness to, and acceptance of, frailty screening. Findings correspond with previous research illuminating the lack of public awareness of frailty and the nascent stage of frailty screening implementation. Incorporating consumer perspectives, along with perspectives of other stakeholder groups when considering implementing frailty screening, is likely to impact uptake and optimise suitability-important considerations in person-centred care provision.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".