Assessment of frailty syndrome using Edmonton frailty scale in Polish elderly sample

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics of the study participants.

Variable	Total N = 382	Women N = 236 (61.8%)	Men N = 146 (38.2%)	W vs. M p
Age (years)
M ± SD	71.9 ± 7.3	72.1 ± 7.6	71.5 ± 6.8
Me [Q1; Q3]	70 [65; 77]	70 [65; 77]	70 [65; 76]	0.44
Min–Max	65–94	65–94	65–94
BMI (kg/m^2)
M ± SD	27.4 ± 5.1	27.1 ± 5.4	27.9 ± 4.6
Me [Q1; Q3]	27 [24; 30]	26 [23; 30]	27 [26; 30]	0.04
Min–Max	17–50	17–48	17–50
Habitation, N (%)
City	107 (28.0)	73 (30.9)	34 (23.3)	0.13
Village	275 (72.0)	163 (69.1)	112 (76.7)
Education, N (%)
Basic	71 (18.6)	54 (22.9)	17 (11.6)
Vocational	105 (27.5)	52 (22.0)	53 (36.3)	0.01
Secondary	149 (39.0)	94 (39.8)	55 (37.7)
Higher	57 (14.9)	36 (15.3)	21 (14.4)
Marital status, N (%)
Single	122 (31.9)	87 (36.9)	35 (24.0)	0.01
In relation	260 (68.1)	149 (63.1)	111 (76.0)
Co-morbidities, N (%)
Hypertension	295 (77.2)	188 (79.7)	107 (73.3)	0.19
Coronary disease	106 (27.7)	69 (29.2)	37 (25.3)	0.48
Heart failure	9 (2.4)	6 (2.5)	3 (2.1)	1.00
Diabetes	144 (37.7)	72 (30.5)	72 (49.3)	0.00
Renal failure	68 (17.8)	42 (17.8)	26 (17.8)	0.89
Occupationally active, N (%)
Yes	71 (18.6)	38 (16.1)	33 (22.6)	0.15
Takes over 5 drugs, N (%)
Yes	235 (61.5)	146 (61.9)	89 (61.0)	0.95

Bold values indicate statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Table 2. Internal consistency of the Edmonton Frailty Scale.

Frailty domain	Item	Mean if deleted	SD if deleted	Item-Total Correlation	Alpha if deleted
Cognition	1	5.94	3.13	0.314	0.699
General health status (Q1)	2	5.76	3.20	0.300	0.698
(Q2)	3	5.57	3.09	0.413	0.679
Functional independence	4	5.94	2.89	0.641	0.632
Social support	5	6.21	3.26	0.251	0.704
Drugs use (Q1)	6	5.85	3.32	0.249	0.703
(Q2)	7	6.33	3.34	0.214	0.707
Nutrition	8	6.25	3.27	0.337	0.693
Mood	9	6.25	3.23	0.428	0.682
Continence	10	6.30	3.30	0.277	0.700
Functional performance	11	5.49	3.00	0.474	0.668

M = 6.59, SD = 3.46, Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.709, Average inter-item correlation r = 0.180.

Table 3. Edmonton Frailty Scale mean scores and the prevalence of frailty syndrome in the studied sample (N = 382).

Variable	Total N = 382	Women N = 236	Men N = 146	W vs. M p
EFS (score):
M ± SD	6.63 ± 3.33	6.61 ± 3.33	6.65 ± 3.25
Me [Q1; Q3]	6 [4; 9]	7 [4; 9]	6 [4; 9]	0.907
Min–Max	0–17	0–15	0–17
Frailty, N (%)
Non frail	157 (41.1)	100 (57.6)	57 (39.0)
Vulnerable	68 (17.8)	48 (50.0)	26 (50.0)	0.969
Frailty syndrome present	157 (41.1)	102 (65.0)	55 (35.0)

Table 4. Characteristics of patients differing in the level of frailty assessed using the Edmonton Frail Scale.

Level of frailty, N (%)	Non Frail 157 (41.1)	Vulnerable 68 (17.8)	Mild 74 (19.4)	Moderate 55 (14.4)	Severe 28 (7.3)
Age (years)
M ± SD	68.5 ± 4.7	71.3 ± 6.6	74.4 ± 8.1	75.2 ± 7.5	79.3 ± 8.0
Me [Q1; Q3]	66 [65; 70]	69 [65; 78]	74 [67; 79]	75 [69; 81]	82 [74; 87]	0.00
Min–Max	65–87	65–89	65–94	65–94	65–89
BMI (kg/m^2)
M ± SD	27.6 ± 4.5	27.4 ± 5.1	27.9 ± 6.1	26.7 ± 5.6	26.2 ± 4.5
Me [Q1; Q3]	28 [24; 30]	26 [24; 31]	27 [24; 30]	25 [22; 31]	25 [24; 29]	0.22
Min–Max	18–41	17–45	17–50	21–40	18–38
Sex, N (%)
Male	57 (36.3)	34 (50.0)	26 (35.1)	15 (27.3)	14 (50.0)	0.06
Female	100 (63.7)	34 (50.0)	48 (64.9)	40 (72.7)	14 (50.0)
Habitation, N (%)
City	119 (75.8)	50 (73.5)	54 (73.0)	32 (58.2)	20 (71.4)	0.17
Village	38 (24.2)	18 (26.5)	20 (27.0)	23 (41.8)	8 (28.6)
Education, N (%)
Basic	16 (10.2)	9 (13.2)	21 (28.4)	15 (27.3)	10 (35.7)
Vocational	43 (27.4)	11 (16.2)	21 (28.4)	20 (36.4)	10 (35.7)	0.00
Secondary	69 (43.9)	30 (44.1)	28 (37.8)	17 (30.9)	5 (17.9)
Higher	29 (18.5)	18 (26.5)	4 (5.4)	3 (5.5)	3 (10.7)
Occupationally active
Yes	44 (28.0)	13 (19.1)	11(14.9)	2 (3.6)	1 (3.6)	0.00
Takes over 5 drugs, N (%)
Yes	83 (52.9)	39 (57.4)	53 (71.6)	41 (74.5)	19 (67.9)	0.01
Co-morbidities, N (%)
Hypertension	116 (73.9)	47 (69.1)	60 (81.1)	46 (83.6)	26 (92.9)	0.05
Coronary disease	31 (19.7)	19 (27.9)	32 (43.2)	17 (30.9)	7 (25.0)	0.01
Heart failure	1 (0.6)	0 (0.0)	6 (8.1)	1 (1.8)	1 (3.6)	0.01
Diabetes	43 (27.4)	22 (32.4)	35 (47.3)	22 (40.0)	22 (78.6)	0.00
Renal failure	21 (13.4)	13 (19.1)	19 (25.7)	11 (20.0)	4 (14.3)	0.22

Bold values indicate statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Table 5. Analysis of one–way variance (ANOVA) of the influence of analysed socio-clinical variables on the overall ESF scores.

Factor	EFS - Total	ANOVA
Gender
Women	6.61 ± 3.33	p = 0.91
Men	6.65 ± 3.25
Age
≤70 years	5.48 ± 2.88	p = 0.00
>70 years	8.07 ± 3.22
Habitation:
City	6.96 ± 3.45	p = 0.21
Village	6.49 ± 3.23
Education
Basic	8.11 ± 3.47	p = 0.00
Vocational	6.90 ± 3.29
Secondary	6.21 ± 3.00
Higher	5.37 ± 3.13
Marital status
Free	7.55 ± 3.08	p = 0.00
In relationship	6.19 ± 3.31
Hypertension
No	5.80 ± 3.07	p = 0.01
Yes	6.87 ± 3.32
Coronary disease
No	6.34 ± 3.33	p = 0.01
Yes	7.38 ± 3.08
Heart failure
No	6.58 ± 3.29	p = 0.06
Yes	8.67 ± 2.87
Diabetes
No	5.98 ± 3.06	p = 0.00
Yes	7.69 ± 3.40
No diseases
No	6.82 ± 3.26	p = 0.00
Yes	4.71 ± 3.00
Occupationally active
No	6.97 ± 3.32	p = 0.00
Yes	5.11 ± 2.70
Takes over 5 drugs
No	5.85 ± 3.30	p = 0.00
Yes	7.11 ± 3.20

Bold values indicate statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Table 6. Multiple regression of independent frailty predictors of the Edmonton Frail Scale score.

	One-variable analysis		Multivariate analysis
Predictor	b	p	B	p	β	SEβ
Age > 70 years	2.592	0.00	1.98	0.00	0.299	0.048
Basic education	1.826	0.00	0.85	0.05	0.101	0.052
Vocational education	0.372	0.32	–	–	–	–
Secondary education	−0.047	0.05	−1.15	0.69	−0.022	0.054
Higher education	−1.478	0.00	−1.19	0.01	−0.128	0.050
Lives in relationship	−1.357	0.00	−0.89	0.01	−0.126	0.044
Hypertension	1.063	0.01	0.40	0.34	0.051	0.054
Coronary disease	1.040	0.01	0.40	0.22	0.055	0.045
Type 2 diabetes	1.704	0.00	1.73	0.00	0.255	0.046
No diseases	−2.104	0.00	−0.47	0.46	−0.042	0.056
Occupationally active	−1.858	0.00	−0.71	0.07	−0.084	0.046
Takes over 5 drugs	1.260	0.00	0.89	0.00	0.132	0.044

Bold values indicate statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Availability of data and materials

All data and materials used in this research are freely available. References have been provided.