Background: Although frailty is often conceptualized in terms of deficits, the level of frailty can be perceived as a complex interplay between deficits and resources. Objective: We studied whether resources such as educational level, financial situation, and living-alone status moderate the negative effects of deficits on two potentially adverse consequences of frailty: self-perceived health and receiving professional care. Methods: Logistic regression analysis was performed with data from a cross-sectional survey, designed by the public health service in the south of the Netherlands. The questionnaire was completed by a representative sample of people aged 70 and over (n = 5,559). Interaction effects between deficits (multimorbidity, difficulty performing ADLs, psychological distress, loneliness) and resources (educational level, financial situation, living-alone status) were studied in relation to self-perceived health and receiving professional care. Results: We found that in males the effect of difficulty in performing ADLs on self-perceived health was modified by educational level (p < 0.05, indicating that difficulty in performing ADLs is more strongly related to moderate/bad self-perceived health for those with higher education). In females, the effect of psychological distress on self-perceived health was modified by educational level (p < 0.05, indicating that suffering from psychological distress is more strongly related to moderate/bad self-perceived health for those with higher education) and the effect of difficulty in performing ADLs on receiving professional care was modified by living-alone status (p < 0.05, indicating that difficulty in performing ADLs was more strongly related to receiving professional care for those women who lived alone). Conclusions: Resources moderate the impact of personal deficits on self-perceived health and receiving professional care. Some frail people seem to be more vulnerable as they lack resources such as a high level of education. This should be taken into account in deciding when elderly people are at risk of negative outcomes of frailty and is therefore important for health professionals and policy-makers.

Keywords:
Frail, Elderly, Aged, Public health, Independent living
1.
United Nations DoEaSA: World Population Prospects. New York, 2011.
2.
Slaets JP: Vulnerability in the elderly: frailty. Med Clin North Am 2006;90:593–601.
3.
Fairhall N, Aggar C, Kurrle SE, Sherrington C, Lord S, Lockwood K, Monaghan N, Cameron ID: Frailty Intervention Trial (FIT). BMC Geriatr 2008;8:27.
4.
Schuurmans H, Steverink N, Lindenberg S, Frieswijk N, Slaets JP: Old or frail: what tells us more? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004;59:M962–M965.
5.
De Lepeleire J, Iliffe S, Mann E, Degryse JM: Frailty: an emerging concept for general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2009;59:e177–e182.
6.
Raphael D, Cava M, Brown I, Renwick R, Heathcote K, Weir N, Wright K, Kirwan L: Frailty: a public health perspective. Can J Public Health 1995;86:224–227.
7.
van Iersel MB, Rikkert MG: Frailty criteria give heterogeneous results when applied in clinical practice. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006;54:728–729.
8.
Gobbens RJ, Luijkx KG, Wijnen-Sponselee MT, Schols JM: Toward a conceptual definition of frail community dwelling older people. Nurs Outlook 2010;58:76–86.
9.
Lally F, Crome P: Understanding frailty. Postgrad Med J 2007;83:16–20.
10.
Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, Seeman T, Tracy R, Kop WJ, Burke G, McBurnie MA: Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001;56:M146–M156.
11.
Buchner DM, Wagner EH: Preventing frail health. Clin Geriatr Med 1992;8:1–17.
12.
Bortz WM 2nd: The physics of frailty. J Am Geriatr Soc 1993;41:1004–1008.
13.
Campbell AJ, Buchner DM: Unstable disability and the fluctuations of frailty. Age Ageing 1997;26:315–318.
14.
Hamerman D: Toward an understanding of frailty. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:945–950.
15.
Bortz WM 2nd: A conceptual framework of frailty: a review. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2002;57:M283–M288.
16.
Strawbridge WJ, Shema SJ, Balfour JL, Higby HR, Kaplan GA: Antecedents of frailty over three decades in an older cohort. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 1998;53:S9–S16.
17.
Walston J, Hadley EC, Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Newman AB, Studenski SA, Ershler WB, Harris T, Fried LP: Research agenda for frailty in older adults: toward a better understanding of physiology and etiology: summary from the American Geriatrics Society/National Institute on Aging Research Conference on Frailty in Older Adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006;54:991–1001.
18.
Nourhashemi F, Andrieu S, Gillette-Guyonnet S, Vellas B, Albarede JL, Grandjean H: Instrumental activities of daily living as a potential marker of frailty: a study of 7,364 community-dwelling elderly women (the EPIDOS study). J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001;56:M448–M453.
19.
Rockwood K, Fox RA, Stolee P, Robertson D, Beattie BL: Frailty in elderly people: an evolving concept. Cmaj 1994;150:489–495.
20.
Rockwood K, Stadnyk K, MacKnight C, McDowell I, Hebert R, Hogan DB: A brief clinical instrument to classify frailty in elderly people. Lancet 1999;353:205–206.
21.
Brocklehurst J: The day hospital. Textbook of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, ed 3. London, Churchill, 1985, pp 982–995.
22.
Puts MTE, Shekary N, Widdershoven G, Heldens J, Deeg DJH: The meaning of frailty according to Dutch older frail and non-frail persons. J Aging Stud 2009;23:258–266.
23.
Pel Littel RE, Schuurmans MJ, Emmelot Vonk MH, Verhaar HJ: Frailty: defining and measuring of a concept. J Nutr Health Aging 2009;13:390–394.
24.
Guralnik JM: Assessing the impact of comorbidity in the older population. Ann Epidemiol 1996;6:376–380.
25.
Katz S, Downs TD, Cash HR, Grotz RC: Progress in development of the index of ADL. Gerontologist 1970;10:20–30.
26.
Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek DK, Normand SL, Walters EE, Zaslavsky AM: Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol Med 2002;32:959–976.
27.
Donker T, Comijs H, Cuijpers P, Terluin B, Nolen W, Zitman F, Penninx B: The validity of the Dutch K10 and extended K10 screening scales for depressive and anxiety disorders. Psychiatry Res 2010;176:45–50.
28.
De Jong Gierveld J, Amphuis FH: The development of a Rasch-type loneliness-scale. Appl Psychol Meas 1985;9:289–299.
29.
Van Tilburg TG, de Jong Gierveld J: Cesuurbepaling van de eenzaamheidsschaal [Cutting scores on the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale]. Tijdschr Gerontol Geriatr 1999;30:158–163.
30.
Denton M, Walters V: Gender differences in structural and behavioral determinants of health: an analysis of the social production of health. Soc Sci Med 1999;48:1221–1235.
31.
Benyamini Y, Leventhal EA, Leventhal H: Gender differences in processing information for making self-assessments of health. Psychosom Med 2000;62:354–364.
32.
Bosma H, Peter R, Siegrist J, Marmot M: Two alternative job stress models and the risk of coronary heart disease. Am J Public Health 1998;88:68–74.
33.
Schneider U, Pfarr C, Schneider BS, Ulrich V: I feel good! Gender differences and reporting heterogeneity in self-assessed health. Eur J Health Econ 2011, E-pub ahead of print.
34.
Nihtila E, Martikainen P: Why older people living with a spouse are less likely to be institutionalized: the role of socioeconomic factors and health characteristics. Scand J Public Health 2008;36:35–43.
35.
Freedman VA: Family structure and the risk of nursing home admission. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 1996;51:S61–S69.
36.
Joung IM, Stronks K, van de Mheen H, Mackenbach JP: Health behaviours explain part of the differences in self-reported health associated with partner/marital status in The Netherlands. J Epidemiol Community Health 1995;49:482–488.
37.
Noel-Miller C: Spousal loss, children, and the risk of nursing home admission. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2010;65B:370–380.
38.
Bambra C, Gibson M, Sowden A, Wright K, Whitehead M, Petticrew M: Tackling the wider social determinants of health and health inequalities: evidence from systematic reviews. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009;64:284–291.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.