ArticleThe Journal of frailty & aging
Ethical and Legal Implications of Frailty Screening.
Article in The Journal of frailty & aging. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feminist approach to geriatric care: comprehensive geriatric assessment, diversity and intersectionality.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022Article
- Time to Address "Frailty Creepage" in the Canadian Healthcare System.The Journal of frailty & agingArticle
- Identification of Frailty in Primary Care: Feasibility and Acceptability of Recommended Case Finding Tools Within a Primary Care Integrated Seniors' Program.Gerontology & geriatric medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Goals of screening for frailty include (a) promoting healthy aging, (b) addressing frailty with preventive and targeted interventions, (c) better aligning social and medical responses to frailty with the needs of frail older adults and (d) preventing harms to frail older adults from excessive and inappropriate medical interventions that are insensitive to the implications of frailty. However, the medicalization of frailty and outcomes of the screening process also risk harming frail older adults and their autonomy through stereotyping and by legitimizing denial of care. This risk of harm gives rise to ethical and legal questions and considerations that this paper addresses. Frailty screening that is ethically defensible will situate and support healthcare that is consistent with people's needs, circumstances and capacity to benefit from the care provided. We also call for an informed consent process that incorporates supported or shared decision making in order to protect the autonomy of frail older adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.