Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29121677›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Socioeconomic inequalities in frailty and frailty components among community-dwelling older citizens.

Carmen B Franse, Amy van Grieken, Li Qin, René J F Melis, Judith A C Rietjens, Hein Raat

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Socioeconomic Inequalities in Frailty Distribution: A Cross-National Comparison of the United States and England.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Comprehensive, continuous, and compulsory monitoring of frailty in elderly.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carmen B FranseDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7953-7817
Amy van GriekenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Li QinDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
René J F MelisDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Judith A C RietjensDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hein RaatDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSo far, it has not yet been studied whether socioeconomic status is associated with distinct frailty components and for which frailty component this association is the strongest. We aimed to examine the association between socioeconomic status and frailty and frailty components. In addition we assessed the mediating effect of the number of morbidities on the association between socioeconomic status and other frailty components.

methodsThis is a cross-sectional study of pooled data of The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey Minimum DataSet in the Netherlands among community-dwelling persons aged 55 years and older (n = 26,014). Frailty was measured with a validated Frailty Index that consisted of 45 items. The Frailty Index contained six components: morbidities, limitations in activities of daily living (ADL), limitations in instrumental ADL (IADL), health-related quality of life, psychosocial health and self-rated health. Socioeconomic indicators used were education level and neighbourhood socioeconomic status.

resultsPersons with primary or secondary education had higher overall frailty and frailty component scores compared to persons with tertiary education (P < .001). Lower education levels were most consistently associated with higher overall frailty, more morbidities and worse self-rated health (P < .05 in all age groups). The strongest association was found between primary education and low psychosocial health for persons aged 55-69 years and more IADL limitations for persons aged 80+ years. Associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and frailty (components) also showed inequalities, although less strong. The number of morbidities moderately to strongly mediated the association between socioeconomic indicators and other frailty components.

conclusionThere are socioeconomic inequalities in frailty and frailty components. Inequalities in frailty, number of morbidities and self-rated health are most consistent across age groups. The number of morbidities a person has play an important role in explaining socioeconomic inequalities in frailty and should be taken into account in the management of frailty.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overCaregiversCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFrail ElderlyFrailtyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPersons with DisabilitiesQuality of LifeSocial Class

Identifiers

PMID29121677
PMCPMC5679620
OpenAlexW2767527018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.