Search

Background: Frailty is characterised by a decline in physical, cognitive, energy, and health reserves and is linked to greater functional dependency and higher social care utilisation. However, the relationship between receiving care, or receiving insufficient care among older people with different frailty status and the risk of unplanned admission to hospital for any cause, or the risk of falls and fractures remains unclear. Methods and findings: This study used information from 7,656 adults aged 60 and older participating in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) waves 6–8. Care status was assessed through received care and self-reported unmet care needs, while frailty was measured using a frailty index. Competing-risk regression analysis was used (with death as a potential competing risk), adjusted for demographic and socioeconomic confounders. Around a quarter of the participants received care, of which approximately 60% received low levels of care, while the rest had high levels of care. Older people who received low and high levels of care had a higher risk of unplanned admission independent of frailty status. Unmet need for care was not significantly associated with an increased risk of unplanned admission compared to those receiving no care. Older people in receipt of care had an increased risk of hospitalisation due to falls but not fractures, compared to those who received no care after adjustment for covariates, including frailty status. Conclusions: Care receipt increases the risk of hospitalisation substantially, suggesting this is a group worthy of prevention intervention focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background frailty is a condition of reduced function and health due to ageing processes and is associated with a higher risk of falls, hospitalisation, disability and mortality. Objective to determine the relationship between household wealth and neighbourhood deprivation with frailty status, independently of demographic factors, educational attainment and health behaviours. Design population-based cohort study. Setting communities in England. Subjects in total 17,438 adults aged 50+ from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Methods multilevel mixed-effects ordered logistic regression was used in this study. Frailty was measured using a frailty index. We defined small geographic areas (neighbourhoods) using English Lower layer Super Output Areas. Neighbourhood deprivation was measured by the English Index of Multiple Deprivation, grouped into quintiles. Health behaviours included in this study are smoking and frequency of alcohol consumption. Results the proportion of respondents who were prefrail and frail were 33.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 33.0–34.6%] and 11.7 (11.1–12.2)%, respectively. Participants in the lowest wealth quintile and living in the most deprived neighbourhood quintile had 1.3 (95% CI = 1.2–1.3) and 2.2 (95% CI = 2.1–2.4) times higher odds of being prefrail and frail, respectively, than the wealthiest participants living in the least deprived neighbourhoods Living in more deprived neighbourhood and poorer wealth was associated with an increased risk of becoming frail. Those inequalities did not change over time. Conclusions in this population-based sample, living in a deprived area or having low wealth was associated with frailty in middle-aged and older adults. This relationship was independent of the effects of individual demographic characteristics and health behaviours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 vaccination in many countries, including England, has been prioritised primarily by age. However, people of the same age can have very different health statuses. Frailty is a commonly used metric of health and has been found to be more strongly associated with mortality than age among COVID-19 inpatients. Methods: We compared the number of first vaccine doses administered across the 135 NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) of England to both the over 50 population and the estimated frail population in each area. Area-based frailty estimates were generated using the English Longitudinal Survey of Ageing (ELSA), a national survey of older people. We also compared the number of doses to the number of people with other risk factors associated with COVID-19: atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, learning disabilities, obesity and smoking status. Results: We estimate that after 79 days of the vaccine program, across all Clinical Commissioning Group areas, the number of people who received a first vaccine per frail person ranged from 4.4 (95% CI 4.0-4.8) and 20.1 (95% CI 18.3-21.9). The prevalences of other risk factors were also poorly associated with the prevalence of vaccination across England. Conclusions: Vaccination with age-based priority created area-based inequities in the number of doses administered relative to the number of people who are frail or have other risk factors associated with COVID-19. As frailty has previously been found to be more strongly associated with mortality than age for COVID-19 inpatients, an age-based priority system may increase the risk of mortality in some areas during the vaccine roll-out period. Authorities planning COVID-19 vaccination programmes should consider the disadvantages of an age-based priority system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]