Frailty Screening in Primary Care-Based Memory Clinics: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of frailty screening using handgrip strength with gait speed measures within four primary care-based memory clinics in Ontario. This mixed methods quality improvement initiative examined the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of frailty screening from the perspective of patients ( N = 216), care partners ( N = 142), and healthcare providers ( N = 9). Frailty screening was well-received by patients and care partners and perceived as quick and easy to administer and integrate into assessment processes by healthcare providers at all four memory clinics. The ease of integrating frailty screening into clinic processes was a key factor facilitating implementation; few challenges or suggestions for improvement were identified. All four clinics plan to continue frailty screening, three using the methods adopted in this study. Integrating frailty screening into memory assessments is feasible and acceptable and, given the interactional relationship between frailty and dementia, provides a significant opportunity to improve health outcomes for older 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 | 0.025 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".