Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30782120›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2019

Frailty: an in-depth qualitative study exploring the views of community care staff.

J F Coker, M E Martin, R M Simpson, L Lafortune

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Rethinking Health System Readiness for Frailty Management: Frontline Perspectives from Indonesia and Malaysia.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Identifying and Managing Frailty: A Survey of UK Healthcare Professionals.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Nurses' Opinions on Frailty.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J F CokerCambridge Institute of Public Health, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK. jfc44@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
M E MartinCambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, Elizabeth House, Fulbourn Hospital, Cambridge, CB21 5EF, UK.
R M SimpsonCambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, Elizabeth House, Fulbourn Hospital, Cambridge, CB21 5EF, UK.
L LafortuneCambridge Institute of Public Health, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrailty is seen across various health and social care settings. However, little is known about how healthcare professionals, particularly those who provide care for older adults living in the community view frailty. There is also a dearth of information about the extent to which a shared understanding of frailty exists across the various disciplines of care. Such an understanding is crucial across care professionals as it ensures consistent assessment of frailty and facilitates interdisciplinary working/collaboration which is a key component in the management of frailty. This study aimed to explore: (i) how community care staff from various specialties viewed frailty; (ii) whether they had a shared understanding; and (iii) how they assessed frailty in everyday practice.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 community care staff from seven specialties, namely: healthcare assistants, therapy assistants, psychiatric nurses, general nurses, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and social workers, recruited from four neighbourhood teams across Cambridgeshire, England. Interviews were analysed thematically.

resultsThere was a shared narrative among participants that frailty is an umbrella term that encompasses interacting physical, mental health and psychological, social, environmental, and economic factors. However, various specialities emphasised the role of specific facets of the frailty umbrella. The assessment and management of frailty was said to require a holistic approach facilitated by interdisciplinary working. Participants voiced a need for interdisciplinary training on frailty, and frailty tools that facilitate peer-learning, a shared understanding of frailty, and consistent assessment of frailty within and across specialities.

conclusionsThese findings underscore the need to: (i) move beyond biomedical descriptions of frailty; (ii) further explore the interacting nature of the various components of the frailty umbrella, particularly the role of modifiable factors such as psychological and socioeconomic resilience; (iii) care for frail older adults using holistic, interdisciplinary approaches; and (iv) promote interdisciplinary training around frailty and frailty tools to facilitate a shared understanding and consistent assessment of frailty within and across specialities.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCommunity Health CentersQualitative ResearchAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFrail ElderlyFrailtyHealth PersonnelHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesCommunity careFrailtyHealthcare professionalsOlder adultsQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID30782120
PMCPMC6381739
OpenAlexW2921049951

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.