Conceptualization of frailty in rehabilitation interventions with adults: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We aimed to synthesize the literature that considered frailty in the evaluation of rehabilitation interventions for adults (aged ≥18) by answering: (1) how is frailty defined in rehabilitation intervention research?; (2) how is frailty operationalized in rehabilitation intervention research?; (3) what are the characteristics of rehabilitation interventions for frail adults and what frailty related outcomes are assessed?Materials and methods: A scoping review was conducted. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.Results: 53 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in Europe and involved randomized control trials. The included studies reported on rehabilitation interventions that only included individuals aged 50 or older. Thirteen studies used Fried’s definition of frailty, but most (n = 27) did not use any definition. Many studies did not differentiate between the conceptualization (e.g., definition) and operationalization (e.g., use of inclusion/exclusion criteria, outcome measures) of frailty. Most interventions focused on exercise. Instrumental activities of daily living reported most frequently as outcomes (n = 11).Conclusions: There is an absence of consistent definitions of frailty in rehabilitation interventions and current definitions tend to focus on physical functioning. The authors suggest rehabilitation researchers consider an expanded definition of frailty informed by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONRehabilitation professionals should use an expanded definition of frailty, informed by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework, should include physical, mental, personal, environmental, and social factors to decrease, delay, or prevent frailty in adults.Rehabilitation professionals should consider a broader operationalization of frailty that is not dependent on age and physical functioning.Rehabilitation professionals that consider a broader conceptualization of frailty should tailor interventions to the specific needs of frail adults.
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 | 0.055 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".