You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Analysis
Frailty: a global health challenge in need of local action
  1. Schenelle Dayna Dlima1,2,3,
  2. Alex Hall1,3,
  3. Abodunrin Quadri Aminu1,3,
  4. Asangaedem Akpan4,5,
  5. Chris Todd1,2,3,6,7,
  6. Emma R L C Vardy1,2,6,8
  1. 1School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  2. 2National Institute for Health and Care Research, Applied Research Collaboration - Greater Manchester, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  3. 3National Institute for Health and Care Research Policy Research Unit in Older People and Frailty / Healthy Ageing, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  4. 4Bunbury Regional Hospital, Bunbury, Western Australia, Australia
  5. 5University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
  6. 6Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
  7. 7Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
  8. 8Oldham Care Organisation, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Rochdale Road, Oldham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Schenelle Dayna Dlima; schenelle.dlima{at}postgrad.manchester.ac.uk

Abstract

Frailty is a complex, age-related clinical condition that involves multiple contributing factors and raises the risk of adverse outcomes in older people. Given global population ageing trends, the growing prevalence and incidence of frailty pose significant challenges to health and social care systems in both high-income and lower-income countries. In this review, we highlight the disproportionate representation of research on frailty screening and management from high-income countries, despite how lower-income countries are projected to have a larger share of older people aged ≥60. However, more frailty research has been emerging from lower-income countries in recent years, paving the way for more context-specific guidelines and studies that validate frailty assessment tools and evaluate frailty interventions in the population. We then present further considerations for contextualising frailty in research and practice in lower-income countries. First, the heterogeneous manifestations of frailty call for research that reflects different geographies, populations, health systems, community settings and policy priorities; this can be driven by supportive collaborative systems between high-income and lower-income countries. Second, the global narrative around frailty and ageing needs re-evaluation, given the negative connotations linked with frailty and the introduction of intrinsic capacity by the World Health Organization as a measure of functional reserves throughout the life course. Finally, the social determinants of health as possible risk factors for frailty in lower-income countries and global majority populations, and potential socioeconomic threats of frailty to national economies warrant proactive frailty screening in these populations.

  • Global Health
  • Health policy
  • Public Health

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015173

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Summary box

    • Frailty is a multifactorial age-related clinical condition associated with adverse health outcomes, complex health and social care needs, and significant challenges to global healthy ageing goals. However, there is no literature that critiques the current state of frailty research and policy through a global health lens.

    • This review bridges the evidence gap by providing a broad overview of frailty in the context of global healthy ageing goals and policies. We highlight how research on frailty screening and management has been predominantly conducted in high-income countries and the lack of geographical and population representativeness, despite rapidly ageing population trends in lower-income countries.

    • The evidence base from lower-income countries is showing an increasing trend, and frailty research from these regions should capture the unique contexts, healthcare systems, population dynamics and cultural nuances.

    • Further considerations for frailty research in lower-income countries include assessing the narrative around frailty, correlations between frailty and intrinsic capacity in different populations, the social determinants of health as contributing risk factors in global majority populations and the socioeconomic implications of addressing frailty in ageing populations.

    • Supportive collaborative networks across high-income and lower-income countries would help drive context-specific research and develop robust care systems for frailty screening and management.

    Introduction

    Frailty is a dynamic, age-related clinical condition characterised by losses in physical, physiological, psychological and social functioning.1 Frailty impairs an individual’s functional homoeostatic reserve, rendering them more vulnerable to relatively minor acute stressors such as infections and environmental changes.2 As frailty is an age-related condition, it poses significant threats to global healthy ageing goals. The world is experiencing a major demographic transition, with the number of older people aged ≥60 projected to double by 2050.3 In recognition of the urgency to address population ageing on a global level, increasing attention has been drawn to the concept of healthy ageing, which the World Health Organization (WHO) defined as ‘the process of developing and maintaining the functional ability that enables well-being in older age’,4 and that to achieve healthy ageing is to spend the later years of one’s life in good health so that people can meet their basic needs, do what they value and continue contributing to society.5 On an individual level, frailty is associated with progressive functional decline and limitations in carrying out basic and instrumental activities of daily living.6–8 Thus, frailty may impede an individual’s capacity to maintain independence and social engagement, limiting or frustrating their desires to contribute to their communities and do what they value. On a health systems level, frailty is associated with complex healthcare needs as the condition raises the risk of falls, fractures, disability, worsening mobility, loneliness, delirium, dementia and depression, which in turn lead to unplanned hospitalisations, care home admissions, lower quality of life and premature death.9 10 This places undue pressure on already strained health and social care systems worldwide.

    Frailty affects millions of people worldwide, with global prevalence figures ranging from 12% to 24%, depending on the frailty assessment tools used and the populations included.11–13 Population ageing transitions are no longer restricted to high-income countries (HICs) in Europe and North America. By 2030, only 20% of older people aged >60 worldwide will live in HICs, and the vast majority will live in lower-income countries14 (see box 1 for the glossary of terms used in this review). Given that frailty is an age-related clinical condition, resource-limited health and social care systems in these countries are projected to shoulder a high burden of the complex needs of older people with frailty.

    Box 1

    Glossary of terms used in this review

    • High-income countries (HICs): Countries with a gross national income per capita of US$13 846 or higher, according to the World Bank’s income categories.113

    • Lower-income countries: An umbrella term used in this review to collectively refer to low-income countries, low-income and middle-income countries, and upper-middle-income countries, according to the World Bank’s income categories.113

    • Context: A spectrum of structural, cultural, natural, political and functional aspects of a social system that influences a person’s social hierarchy and in turn, their health, social and economic opportunities throughout their life.93 94

    • Deficit accumulation model of frailty: A conceptual model of frailty that proposes ‘the more things individuals have wrong with them, the higher the likelihood that they will be frail’ (Rockwood K, Mitnitski A,114, p722). These ‘things that individuals have wrong with them’ are deficits and can include symptoms, signs, disabilities, diseases and laboratory measurements.114

    • Phenotypic model of frailty: This conceptual model defines frailty as the presence of three or more of the following phenotypes: shrinking (unintentional weight loss of ≥4.5 kg in the past year), weakness (low grip strength), exhaustion (self-reported), slowness (slow walking speed) and low physical activity.30

    • Social determinants of health: A conceptual framework proposed by the WHO that depicts how social, demographic, political and economic factors influence a person’s health status and well-being, as well as health equity.93

    • Intrinsic capacity: A composite of a person’s physical and mental capacities (World Health Organization,75, p28).

    • Functional ability: Comprises a person’s intrinsic capacity, relevant environmental characteristics and the interactions between the person and these characteristics (World Health Organization,75, p28).

    • Chronic diseases: Also called non-communicable diseases, these tend to affect a person for long durations and can be caused by genetic, physiological, environmental and/or behavioural factors.115 Examples include diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, cancer and chronic respiratory diseases.

    To date, there is limited evidence that provides a holistic picture of frailty in research, practice and policy in the context of global population ageing goals and strategies. The purpose of our review is to fill this evidence gap by highlighting the current state of frailty in research and clinical practice through a global health and policy lens. By drawing from a large body of literature, we present context-specific implications for addressing frailty as a global health challenge in research, practice and policy.

    Search strategy and evidence synthesis

    To understand the geographical representativeness of frailty-related research, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar and Web of Science for different types of reviews that pooled evidence to understand frailty prevalence, incidence, screening, management and guidelines in the last decade. These reviews helped us understand ongoing frailty debates and served as starting points to explore region-specific and country-specific research through citation searches. We excluded reviews that focused on frailty in specific disease populations. We also reviewed reports published by the WHO to understand global healthy ageing goals and strategies. This helped us formulate our arguments for context-specific considerations in the global frailty debate. We primarily used Web of Science and Google Scholar to retrieve frailty-related policy reports and documents for specific countries.

    The subsequent sections present an overview of frailty from a global perspective and considerations for contextualising frailty in research, practice and policy.

    Frailty in research and practice from a global perspective

    In the frailty discourse, commonly reported challenges are the absence of an internationally recognised frailty definition, lack of standardised frailty assessment tools and interventions, and uncertainties about the true impacts of frailty. These issues are partly attributed to how frailty research is skewed towards specific geographies and economic areas. Most frailty research is from HICs, and the evidence base from lower-income countries is limited and has only been recently growing. Regarding research on the burden of frailty, systematic reviews highlight the disproportionate representation of research from HICs, as exemplified in a systematic review that determined the pooled prevalence of frailty from datasets from 62 countries. Only 2.6% (11/425) of the datasets came from populations in Africa while 36.2% (154/425) datasets came from populations in Europe, followed by the Americas (29.6%), Asia (27.8%) and Oceania (3.8%).12 The review also highlighted large in-region and in-country heterogeneities in the population samples. There are wide variations in the frailty research landscape even within continents. For example, in Asia, frailty research is predominantly conducted in Eastern Asia, particularly in Japan and South Korea. Japan is a super-aged society (>20% of the population is aged ≥65)15 while South Korea is projected to become one by 2025.16 In contrast, other countries in the region have different population structures; for example, 12% of the population in China is aged >6517 while the estimate is 5% in Mongolia.18 This research trend in Japan and South Korea reflects the national priorities to address the super-ageing populations in these countries. One systematic review estimated the prevalence of frailty and prefrailty in lower-income countries and noted that most studies came from upper-middle-income countries such as Brazil, China, Mexico and Colombia while representation from low-income countries and low-income and middle-income countries was comparatively lower.13

    Research on frailty management also lacks geographical and population representativeness. Systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of frailty interventions have been predominantly conducted in HICs in Europe (such as the UK, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden) and Asia (such as Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore).19–24 Few trials have been conducted in China, Mexico and Brazil.19 22 24 This disproportionately skewed frailty research landscape, compounded by variations in frailty definitions and assessment tools, makes it challenging to establish the true global burden of frailty and to compare the effectiveness of frailty screening and management tools used worldwide.

    The characteristics of overall frailty research emerging from lower-income countries and HICs are evidently heterogeneous. Although there are exceptions, frailty research conducted in lower-income countries has predominantly included smaller samples and focused on specific regions and populations within the country to quantify the frailty burden and to adapt different frailty assessment tools. In contrast, frailty research in HICs is exploring large administrative and survey databases to further understand frailty,25 determine the prognostic value of frailty for treatment and medical procedures26 27 and investigate the biological and genetic characteristics of frailty.28 29 Notably, the two predominant conceptualisations of frailty in the literature, the phenotypic and deficit accumulation models, were developed from two population surveys in HICs in North America: the Cardiovascular Health Study in the USA30 and the Canadian Study of Health and Aging in Canada.31 Population surveys from HICs, such as the Health and Retirement Study in the USA,32 English Longitudinal Study of Ageing in England,33 Korean Longitudinal Study on Health and Aging,34 and Japanese Study of Aging and Retirement,35 have been collecting information from as far back as the 1980s, making them data-rich sources for large-scale cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on frailty. In lower-income countries, frailty-specific research has recently shown an increasing trend, aided by the roll-out of population surveys on ageing. Examples include the Health and Aging in Africa: A Longitudinal Study of an INDEPTH Community in South Africa36 (baseline survey conducted in 2014–2015), Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (baseline survey conducted in 2017–2018)37 and Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSI-Brazil) (baseline survey conducted in 2015–2016).38 These surveys enable cross-country comparisons while ensuring the capturing of context-specific data. As these surveys mature, we can expect a more enriched frailty research landscape from lower-income countries that leverages more data points, enables generalisability and sheds light on context-specific nuances in frailty prevalence, screening and management.

    Since the two seminal frailty conceptualisation publications in 2001,30 31 a plethora of frailty assessment tools has emerged (table 1), although developed and validated in populations in high-income contexts. More recently, evidence is emerging on adapting and validating existing frailty screening tools, such as the Edmonton Frailty Scale,39 cumulative deficit frailty index40 and Clinical Frailty Scale,41 in different populations. Efforts are also being directed towards understanding ageing on a global scale. The WHO Study on Global AGEing and Adult Health is an ongoing programme collecting longitudinal data on ageing and health from the following countries: China, Ghana, India, Mexico, the Russian Federation and South Africa.42 This data harmonisation exercise will further promote cross-country comparisons of ageing-related metrics, with more frailty-specific peer-reviewed publications expected in the future.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Characteristics of frailty screening tools commonly cited in the literature

    In clinical and social care practice, frailty screening and management have been the focus only in HICs owing to the large ageing populations and associated healthcare needs, driving their prioritisation in public health and policy. A recent systematic review retrieved clinical guidelines on frailty prevention and management and found that most originated from the UK, the USA and Canada.43 The remaining two guideline documents originated from the Asia-Pacific region44 and the International Conference on Frailty and Sarcopenia Research.45 Regarding real-world practice, the National Health Service in the UK became the first health system globally to integrate mandatory frailty assessment in routine primary care practice using the electronic frailty index, which automatically calculates frailty scores based on diagnostic codes in a patient’s electronic health record.46 47 However, variations persist in its uptake and utilisation in practice, with uncertainties in the tool’s accuracy and clinical utility.48 49 In Japan, the Long-Term Care Insurance system is a form of mandatory social insurance system that provides preventive and supportive care services to frail and prefrail individuals.50 Eligibility is decided by evaluating frailty status using the Kihon Checklist, followed by a multistep process to determine the dependency levels and care needs of potential beneficiaries.50 51 Evidence on frailty in clinical practice in lower-income countries is sparse; hence, how frailty is assessed, recorded and addressed by practitioners in these contexts remains unclear. As the manifestations of frailty overlap with those of chronic diseases and disability, identifying and diagnosing frailty as a distinct clinical condition may be limited due to overburdened health workforces and lack of appropriate training, equipment and frailty tools validated in local populations.52 For example, Nigeria reportedly has less than 100 geriatricians for 4 million older people.53 Therefore, the clinical opportunities to address frailty once it develops are limited in lower-income countries.

    Considerations for contextualising frailty in research and practice

    ‘Think globally, research locally’

    The extensive research on frailty to date is a welcome sign of its recognition as a public and global health concern. The current direction of frailty research in lower-income countries also signals increasing prioritisation in clinical practice and policy. Table 2 presents examples of frailty research in lower-income countries, and how frailty and ageing strategies have been integrated into practice and policy, reflecting these countries’ different national priorities. The evolution in frailty research should not be considered a linear journey, and the frailty research landscape in lower-income countries does not need to ‘catch up’ to that in HICs. The manifestations of frailty in older people are heterogeneous and influenced by different socioeconomic, demographic and clinical factors.54 Such a complex, multidimensional condition warrants research that represents different geographies, populations, health systems and community settings. Thus, research conducted in lower-income countries should expectedly have different objectives, study designs and study sample characteristics reflecting the different research and policy priorities, which may be markedly different from those in HICs. Population ageing surveys in lower-income countries can facilitate the development of tailored frailty assessment and management tools that are validated in specific contexts, as they will collect data and evaluate outcomes most pertinent to national health and policy priorities. Existing frailty screening tools and clinical guidelines can serve as blueprints for context-specific validation studies and trials.55–58 However, frailty screening tools and guidelines originating from HICs also vary in feasibility and quality43 59–61; thus, global evidence should help guide rather than dictate local implementation research and practice. For example, the GeKo–Integrated Service Delivery model for frailty management in Malaysia62 is based on the Canadian Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses model of care.63

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Examples of frailty and ageing in research, practice and policy in lower-income countries

    Several studies and reviews advocate for a ‘standardised frailty definition’ and ‘standardised assessment tool and management plan’. An internationally recognised frailty definition is warranted to ensure consistency across research outputs, policy design and clinical practice guidelines. However, frailty assessment tools should capture the multidimensional contributing factors, health system dynamics and feasibility of routine implementation in specific contexts, and these context-specific tools should align with a standardised frailty definition.

    Evaluating the global narrative around frailty and ageing

    There is a call to shift the rhetoric of ageing from a unidirectional path to inevitable morbidity to a positive transition where older people can still thrive, contribute to society and maintain meaningful interactions with their community. Regression in frailty states has been reported,64–67 but whether frailty progresses or regresses depends on various sociodemographic and clinical factors.7 68 69 In efforts to establish shared goals for public health response to population ageing, the WHO advocate moving away from a disease-focused model of ageing, including going beyond the traditional view on frailty.70 71 Frailty remains associated with negative connotations, being perceived as identity loss, deterioration of status, a synonym for weakness and dependency, and an inevitable part of the ageing process.72–74 The WHO is drawing focus on the intrinsic capacity of an individual, which in turn determines their functional ability.75 Intrinsic capacity is described as the loss in the functioning of multiple health domains (cognition, locomotion, sensorium, psychology and vitality),76 overlapping with the clinical characteristics of frailty. Belloni and Cesari pointed out how intrinsic capacity and frailty can be considered as ‘two sides of the same coin’ (Belloni G, Cesari M, p356).77 Intrinsic capacity encompasses a person’s physical and mental reserves throughout their life while frailty correlates with greater vulnerabilities to adverse outcomes from losses in multisystemic physiological reserves in later life.78 Thus, intrinsic capacity is a measure of what a person has (reserves) rather than what they lack (deficits),79 lending the construct a more positive connotation. Intrinsic capacity may also be beneficial in understanding longitudinal changes in residual capacities throughout the life course, especially as most frailty instruments are only validated in older populations.80 Research on operationalising intrinsic capacity81 82 and the contributing factors,83 84 associations with adverse outcomes85 86 and role in evaluating interventions81 87 is emerging from both HICs and lower-income countries. However, inconsistencies in the measurement models and operationalisation methods prevail,88 impeding translations from theory to real-world practice.77 One may argue that the shift from frailty to intrinsic capacity may diminish the wide-ranging impacts of frailty on individuals, communities and health systems. Vernon described how the narrative of frailty as a long-term, clinical, identifiable and potentially reversible condition fueled policy implementation in the UK.89 Some frailty tools, such as the frailty index, also capture characteristics not included in the intrinsic capacity composite score, such as comorbidities and social vulnerability. Frailty is challenging to distinguish from manifestations of multiple chronic conditions and disability; hence, screening for frailty specifically using validated tools is important to ensure people receive timely intervention. It should be acknowledged that the construct of intrinsic capacity was developed from the need to provide personalised and integrated care plans, and this has also been recognised for frailty. As research on intrinsic capacity is still in its infancy, there are opportunities to develop a standardised and feasible measurement tool. A composite score that integrates both intrinsic capacity and frailty components may be considered. Although such a standardised tool may have global research and policy benefits by facilitating generalisability and consistency, we recommend that this tool rather serves as a blueprint for more context-specific adaptations that would account for national policies, population health priorities and feasibility in community settings. Recent studies have reported associations between intrinsic capacity and different dimensions of frailty.90–92 Further research on the potential of embedding intrinsic capacity measurement into current frailty screening and chronic disease management pathways, and public perceptions of intrinsic capacity as an ageing-related concept is warranted.

    Considering the social determinants of health in the frailty discourse

    Frailty involves a complex interplay of non-modifiable and modifiable risk factors, which may contribute to differing incidence rates, manifestations and trajectories. The WHO’s social determinants of health93 have gained a strong foothold in the global health landscape. Although there is a non-modifiable, age-related component in frailty development,2 addressing the social determinants of health can help lower the risk of frailty onset and worsening across populations and contexts, especially given how frailty is preventable and reversible. Drawing from this conceptual framework, Sadana et al94 proposed a preliminary model for healthy ageing and health equity in a global context, consisting of four components: (1) the physical–socio–economic–political or overall context; (2) genetic inheritance and socioeconomic position; (3) intermediary determinants (such as health and social care systems, intrinsic capacity and the built environment) and (4) the outcome of interest (healthy ageing).94 Evidence already shows associations between elements of these components (such as the built environment, sociodemographic characteristics and comorbidities) and frailty.54 95 Hence, this model for healthy ageing can also be applied to frailty. Given the limited availability of specialised geriatric workforces to identify and treat frailty in lower-income countries, the model’s components could guide research, policy and actionable strategies to achieve the outcome of interest, that is, frailty prevention and regression.

    For example, the social determinants of health and the healthy ageing model can be used to address chronic diseases, which are risk factors for frailty and occur at younger ages in lower-income countries and in global majority populations in HICs.96 97 Chronic diseases are related to the intermediary determinants of the healthy ageing model. Living with multiple chronic diseases (multimorbidity) is a growing challenge in lower-income countries that demands context-specific guidelines for its diagnosis and management.98 Thus, given the correlation between chronic diseases and frailty, frailty incidence rates may be greater in these populations and geographies, and frailty trajectories may begin earlier and progress more rapidly. Integrating opportunistic frailty screening and management into existing models of chronic disease care may be feasible and cost-effective in such contexts, and determinants such as the built environment, lifestyle behaviours and exposures can be considered while designing and implementing interventions for both chronic diseases and frailty. This demonstrates how intrinsic and extrinsic determinants at multiple levels, such as coverage of services to manage chronic diseases, chronological age, ethnicity, comorbidities and lifestyle, are worth considering for frailty prevention and management in health and social care practice.

    Potential socioeconomic benefits of addressing frailty

    Whether the benefits of integrating frailty assessment in routine care outweigh the costs to already strained, resource-limited health and social care systems requires consideration. The frailty research landscape is saturated with studies on new assessment tools rather than management strategies.99 Thus, actions necessary following frailty identification may still be unclear to healthcare practitioners in lower-income countries, especially given the lack of evidence on frailty management in these contexts. We argue that frailty should still be considered in healthcare practice and policy in lower-income countries for several reasons. First, evidence shows that the onset of frailty is associated with greater healthcare use and subsequent healthcare costs,100–102 given the multidisciplinary care needs for the condition.103 Second, although evidence is mixed, frailty has been shown to correlate with socioeconomic factors such as education levels, income levels, residence status (rural/urban), neighbourhood deprivation levels and ethnicity.104–109 Thus, large disparities in socioeconomic status in lower-income countries may drive the disproportionate incidence and progression of frailty, further widening health and social inequities. Third, frailty poses threats to the economic productivity of older people aged ≥55, who make up a larger share of the labour workforce globally.110 If there is a risk of earlier frailty onset in populations in lower-income countries, prime economically productive years may be spent being frail, with serious implications on public health expenditure and pension contributions. This can have adverse consequences on the long-term economic health of a country. Evidence suggests that an increasing ageing population could drive long-term economic growth in lower-income countries due to accumulation of capital and assets, consumption patterns and contributions to household incomes if they continue to work.111 Finally, frailty is a dynamic condition, and research has shown that the likelihood of improving from prefrailty to robust is greater than improving from frailty to robust.65–67 Identifying early stages of frailty may facilitate timely intervention, thus optimising scope for frailty reversal.112 This is also important in hospital settings, as deconditioning associated with hospitalisation and prolonged bedrest are linked with frailty onset and progression. Frailty should be considered in postdischarge pathways to prevent long-term consequences on individuals and their carers; loss of work productivity and subsequent strains on secondary care, community care and economic resources. Thus, national policies and guidelines that support frailty screening and interventions are in the best interests of healthcare systems and labour markets. These policies and guidelines should account for the heterogeneous risk factors and population dynamics, feasibility of frailty screening in specific healthcare settings and cultural considerations for frailty interventions related to exercise and nutrition. Preventing and optimally managing frailty can help healthcare systems steer away from catastrophic costs and ensure older people remain active contributors to national economies and their communities.

    Strengths and limitations of this review

    Owing to the large body of literature, our review is limited by its lack of a systematic approach to extract relevant literature and in-depth analyses. However, we drew from evidence from multiple countries and contexts to provide a narrative overview of the breadth of the frailty literature through a global health lens. Our review is also coauthored by clinical and research experts with broad knowledge of frailty and healthy ageing in research, practice and policy, thus providing balanced arguments on frailty and healthy ageing debates.

    Conclusion

    Rapid population ageing in lower-income countries poses significant challenges to healthcare systems and national economies. Ensuring that older people spend their later years in good health is crucial to achieve global healthy ageing goals, which include preventing frailty, a condition associated with problematic ageing. Studies on frailty have predominantly originated from HICs, but their findings cannot be simply generalised to lower-income countries owing to the multidimensional risk factors and heterogeneous manifestations of the condition. The growing and diversifying evidence landscape on frailty from lower-income countries in recent years signals the recognition of frailty as a serious public health challenge. However, research should be context-specific and informed by the cultural nuances, underlying social determinants of health, population dynamics, health system structures and policy priorities. Future directions for research, practice, policy in both global and resource-limited contexts include (1) reaching a consensus on an internationally recognised frailty definition; (2) adapting existing frailty screening tools, interventions and clinical guidelines for local populations; (3) exploring intrinsic capacity as an indicator of ageing over the life course, and its associations with frailty and utility in routine health and social care; (4) addressing the social determinants of health at different care levels to prevent frailty onset and worsening in HICs and lower-income countries; (5) evaluating the socioeconomic benefits of addressing frailty on an individual, community, national and global level, thereby helping drive policy change and (6) building supportive collaborative systems between HICs and lower-income countries to develop and improve care systems and drive research with and for older people to prevent frailty onset and progression.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Gobbens RJ,
      2. Luijkx KG,
      3. Wijnen-Sponselee MT, et al
      . Toward a conceptual definition of frail community dwelling older people. Nurs Outlook 2010;58:76–86. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2009.09.005
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Clegg A,
      2. Young J
      . The frailty syndrome. Clin Med (Lond) 2011;11:72–5. doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.11-1-72
      OpenUrl
    3. ↵
      1. World Health Organization
      . Ageing and health. 2022. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health
    4. ↵
      1. World Health Organization
      . Healthy ageing and functional ability 2020. 2023. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/healthy-ageing-and-functional-ability
    5. ↵
      1. Rudnicka E,
      2. Napierała P,
      3. Podfigurna A, et al
      . The world health organization (WHO) approach to healthy ageing. Maturitas 2020;139:6–11. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2020.05.018
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    6. ↵
      1. Álvarez-Bustos A,
      2. Carnicero-Carreño JA,
      3. Sanchez-Sanchez JL, et al
      . Associations between frailty trajectories and frailty status and adverse outcomes in community‐dwelling older adults. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2022;13:230–9. doi:10.1002/jcsm.12888
      OpenUrl
    7. ↵
      1. Kaskirbayeva D,
      2. West R,
      3. Jaafari H, et al
      . Progression of frailty as measured by a cumulative deficit index: a systematic review. Ageing Res Rev 2023;84:101789. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2022.101789
      OpenUrl
    8. ↵
      1. Sánchez-García S,
      2. García-Peña C,
      3. Salvà A, et al
      . Frailty in community-dwelling older adults: association with adverse outcomes. Clin Interv Aging 2017;12:1003–11. doi:10.2147/CIA.S139860
      OpenUrl
    9. ↵
      1. Hoogendijk EO,
      2. Afilalo J,
      3. Ensrud KE, et al
      . Frailty: implications for clinical practice and public health. Lancet 2019;394:1365–75. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31786-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Kojima G,
      2. Liljas AEM,
      3. Iliffe S
      . Frailty syndrome: implications and challenges for health care policy. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2019;12:23–30. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S168750
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. O’Caoimh R,
      2. Galluzzo L,
      3. Rodríguez-Laso Á, et al
      . Prevalence of frailty at population level in European ADVANTAGE joint action member states: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Ist Super San 2018;54:226–38.
      OpenUrl
    12. ↵
      1. O’Caoimh R,
      2. Sezgin D,
      3. O’Donovan MR, et al
      . Prevalence of frailty in 62 countries across the world: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-level studies. Age Ageing 2021;50:96–104. doi:10.1093/ageing/afaa219
      OpenUrlPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Siriwardhana DD,
      2. Hardoon S,
      3. Rait G, et al
      . Prevalence of frailty and Prefrailty among community-dwelling older adults in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2018;8:e018195. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018195
    14. ↵
      United Nations Department of economic and social affairs. World Population Ageing; 2019.
    15. ↵
      1. European parliamentary research service
      . Japan’s ageing society. European Parliament; 2020.
    16. ↵
      1. The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific
      . South Korea’s population shift: challenges and opportunities. Lancet Reg Health West Pac 2023;36:100865. doi:10.1016/j.lanwpc.2023.100865
    17. ↵
      1. Lobanov-Rostovsky S,
      2. He Q,
      3. Chen Y, et al
      . Growing old in China in socioeconomic and epidemiological context: systematic review of social care policy for older people. BMC Public Health 2023;23:1272. doi:10.1186/s12889-023-15583-1
      OpenUrl
    18. ↵
      1. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
      . Aging data Mongolia. 2023. Available: https://www.population-trends-asiapacific.org/data/MNG
    19. ↵
      1. Apóstolo J,
      2. Cooke R,
      3. Bobrowicz-Campos E, et al
      . Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pre-frailty and frailty progression in older adults: a systematic review. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Rep 2018;16:140–232. doi:10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003382
      OpenUrl
    20. ↵
      1. Brennan TH,
      2. Lewis LK,
      3. Gordon SJ, et al
      . Effectiveness of interventions to prevent or reverse pre-frailty and frailty in middle-aged community dwelling adults: a systematic review. Prev Med 2024;185:108008. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.108008
      OpenUrl
    21. ↵
      1. Crocker TF,
      2. Ensor J,
      3. Lam N, et al
      . Community based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2024;384:e077764. doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-077764
    22. ↵
      1. de Labra C,
      2. Guimaraes-Pinheiro C,
      3. Maseda A, et al
      . Effects of physical exercise interventions in frail older adults: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMC Geriatr 2015;15:154. doi:10.1186/s12877-015-0155-4
      OpenUrlPubMed
    23. ↵
      1. Dent E,
      2. Martin FC,
      3. Bergman H, et al
      . Management of frailty: opportunities, challenges, and future directions. Lancet 2019;394:1376–86. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31785-4
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. Racey M,
      2. Ali MU,
      3. Sherifali D, et al
      . Effectiveness of physical activity interventions in older adults with frailty or prefrailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 2021;9:E744–56. doi:10.9778/cmajo.20200248
      OpenUrl
    25. ↵
      1. Orkaby AR,
      2. Nussbaum L,
      3. Ho Y-L, et al
      . The burden of frailty among U.S. veterans and its association with mortality, 2002-2012. J Gerontol 2019;74:1257–64. doi:10.1093/gerona/gly232
      OpenUrl
    26. ↵
      1. Aguilar-Frasco JL,
      2. Rodríguez-Quintero JH,
      3. Moctezuma-Velázquez P, et al
      . Frailty index as a predictive preoperative tool in the elder population undergoing major abdominal surgery: a prospective analysis of clinical utility. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2021;406:1189–98. doi:10.1007/s00423-021-02128-6
      OpenUrl
    27. ↵
      1. Connolly MJ,
      2. Ahmed A,
      3. Worrall A, et al
      . Reliability of the modified frailty index (mFI) for intervention and continued surveillance in elective Infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Surg 2023;21:250–5. doi:10.1016/j.surge.2022.10.002
      OpenUrl
    28. ↵
      1. Giri S,
      2. Dahal S,
      3. Bal S, et al
      . Pre-treatment neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio as a biomarker of frailty and predictor of survival among older adults with multiple myeloma. J Geriatr Oncol 2022;13:486–92. doi:10.1016/j.jgo.2021.12.004
      OpenUrl
    29. ↵
      1. Kim S,
      2. Wyckoff J,
      3. Morris A-T, et al
      . DNA methylation associated with healthy aging of elderly twins. Geroscience 2018;40:469–84. doi:10.1007/s11357-018-0040-0
      OpenUrl
    30. ↵
      1. Fried LP,
      2. Tangen CM,
      3. Walston J, et al
      . Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001;56:M146–56. doi:10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      1. Mitnitski AB,
      2. Mogilner AJ,
      3. Rockwood K
      . Accumulation of deficits as a proxy measure of aging. Sci World J 2001;1:323–36. doi:10.1100/tsw.2001.58
      OpenUrl
    32. ↵
      1. HRS
      . The health and retirement study. 2023. Available: https://hrs.isr.umich.edu/about
    33. ↵
      1. ELSA
      . About ELSA. 2023. Available: https://www.elsa-project.ac.uk/about-elsa
    34. ↵
      1. Park JH,
      2. Lim S,
      3. Lim J-Y, et al
      . An overview of the Korean longitudinal study on health and aging. Psychiatry Investig 2007;4:84–95.
      OpenUrl
    35. ↵
      1. Research Institute of Economy TaI
      . JSTAR Japanese study of aging and retirement. 2023. Available: https://www.rieti.go.jp/en/projects/jstar
    36. ↵
      1. HAALSI
      . HAALSI - health and aging in Africa: A longitudinal study in South Africa. 2023. Available: https://haalsi.org/about
    37. ↵
      1. International Institute for Population Sciences
      . LASI longitudinal ageing study in India. 2023. Available: https://www.iipsindia.ac.in/lasi
    38. ↵
      1. Lima-Costa MF,
      2. de Andrade FB,
      3. de Souza PRB, et al
      . The Brazilian longitudinal study of aging (ELSI-Brazil): objectives and design. Am J Epidemiol 2018;187:1345–53. doi:10.1093/aje/kwx387
      OpenUrl
    39. ↵
      1. Roopsawang I,
      2. Thompson H,
      3. Zaslavsky O, et al
      . The reported Edmonton frail scale‐Thai version: development and validation of a culturally‐sensitive instrument. Nurs Health Sci 2020;22:685–93. doi:10.1111/nhs.12713
      OpenUrl
    40. ↵
      1. Barker FJ,
      2. Davies JI,
      3. Gomez-Olive FX, et al
      . Developing and evaluating a frailty index for older South Africans—findings from the HAALSI study. Age Ageing 2021;50:2167–73. doi:10.1093/ageing/afab111
      OpenUrl
    41. ↵
      1. Chou Y-C,
      2. Tsou H-H,
      3. Chan D-CD, et al
      . Validation of clinical frailty scale in Chinese translation. BMC Geriatr 2022;22:604. doi:10.1186/s12877-022-03287-x
    42. ↵
      1. World Health Organization
      . Study on global ageing and adult health (SAGE). 2023. Available: https://apps.who.int/healthinfo/systems/surveydata/index.php/catalog/sage/about
    43. ↵
      1. Zheng L,
      2. Li G,
      3. Qiu Y, et al
      . Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of frailty: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs 2022;78:709–21. doi:10.1111/jan.15067
      OpenUrl
    44. ↵
      1. Dent E,
      2. Lien C,
      3. Lim WS, et al
      . The Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines for the management of frailty. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2017;18:564–75. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2017.04.018
      OpenUrlPubMed
    45. ↵
      1. Dent E,
      2. Morley JE,
      3. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, et al
      . Physical frailty: ICFSR International clinical practice guidelines for identification and management. J Nutr Health Aging 2019;23:771–87. doi:10.1007/s12603-019-1273-z
      OpenUrlPubMed
    46. ↵
      1. NHS England
      . Using case finding and risk stratification: a key service component for Personalised care and support planning. 2015.
    47. ↵
      1. Clegg A,
      2. Bates C,
      3. Young J, et al
      . Development and validation of an electronic frailty index using routine primary care electronic health record data. Age Ageing 2016;45:353–60. doi:10.1093/ageing/afw039
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    48. ↵
      1. Seeley A,
      2. Glogowska M,
      3. Hayward G
      . Frailty as an adjective rather than a diagnosis’—identification of frailty in primary care: a qualitative interview study. Age Ageing 2023;52:afad095. doi:10.1093/ageing/afad095
    49. ↵
      1. Alharbi K,
      2. van Marwijk H,
      3. Reeves D, et al
      . Identification and management of frailty in english primary care: a qualitative study of national policy. BJGP Open 2020;4:bjgpopen20X101019. doi:10.3399/bjgpopen20X101019
    50. ↵
      1. Yamada M,
      2. Arai H,
      3. Sonoda T, et al
      . Community-based exercise program is cost-effective by preventing care and disability in Japanese frail older adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2012;13:507–11. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2012.04.001
      OpenUrlPubMed
    51. ↵
      1. Nemoto M,
      2. Yabushita N,
      3. Kim M, et al
      . Assessment of vulnerable older adults’ physical function according to the Japanese long-term care insurance (LTCI) system and fried’s criteria for frailty syndrome. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2012;55:385–91. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2011.10.004
      OpenUrlPubMed
    52. ↵
      1. Gray WK,
      2. Richardson J,
      3. McGuire J, et al
      . Frailty screening in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc 2016;64:806–23. doi:10.1111/jgs.14069
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    53. ↵
      1. PUNCH
      . 'Nigeria has less than 100 Geriatricians to over four million old people’: PUNCH. 2020. Available: https://punchng.com/scarcity-of-geriatricians-cause-of-death-among-hospitalised-elderly-people-physicians
    54. ↵
      1. Wang X,
      2. Hu J,
      3. Wu D
      . Risk factors for frailty in older adults. Medicine (Baltimore) 2022;101:e30169. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000030169
    55. ↵
      1. De K,
      2. Banerjee J,
      3. Rajan SP, et al
      . Development and psychometric validation of a new scale for assessment and screening of frailty among older Indians. Clin Interv Aging 2021;16:537–47. doi:10.2147/CIA.S292969
      OpenUrl
    56. ↵
      1. Huang EYZ,
      2. Cheung J,
      3. Liu JYW, et al
      . Groningen frailty indicator–Chinese (GFI-C) for pre-frailty and frailty assessment among older people living in communities: psychometric properties and diagnostic accuracy. BMC Geriatr 2022;22:788. doi:10.1186/s12877-022-03437-1
    57. ↵
      1. Sriwong W,
      2. Mahavisessin W,
      3. Srinonprasert V, et al
      . Validity and reliability of the Thai version of the simple frailty questionnaire (T-FRAIL) with modifications to improve its diagnostic properties in the preoperative setting. BMC Geriatr 2022;22:161. doi:10.1186/s12877-022-02863-5
      OpenUrl
    58. ↵
      1. Sundarakumar JS,
      2. Raviteja KV,
      3. Muniz-Terrera G, et al
      . Normative data for three physical frailty parameters in an aging, rural Indian population. Health Sci Rep 2022;5:e567. doi:10.1002/hsr2.567
    59. ↵
      1. Si H,
      2. Yu J,
      3. Liu Q, et al
      . Clinical practice guidelines for frailty vary in quality but guide primary health care: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2023;161:28–38. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.06.019
      OpenUrl
    60. ↵
      1. Mehta P,
      2. Lemon G,
      3. Hight L, et al
      . A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for identification and management of frailty. J Nutr Health Aging 2021;25:382–91. doi:10.1007/s12603-020-1549-3
      OpenUrl
    61. ↵
      1. Dent E,
      2. Kowal P,
      3. Hoogendijk EO
      . Frailty measurement in research and clinical practice: a review. Eur J Intern Med 2016;31:3–10. doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2016.03.007
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    62. ↵
      1. Ahip SS,
      2. Ting CY,
      3. Abdillah MAB, et al
      . Integrated service delivery model in primary care to improve frailty in older Malaysians: Geko integrated service delivery. J Frailty Aging 2024. doi:10.14283/jfa.2024.42
    63. ↵
      1. Hébert R,
      2. Veil A,
      3. Raîche M, et al
      . Evaluation of the implementation of PRISMA, a coordination-type integrated service delivery system for frail older people in Québec. J Integr Care 2008;16:4–14. doi:10.1108/14769018200800041
      OpenUrl
    64. ↵
      1. Davies K,
      2. Maharani A,
      3. Chandola T, et al
      . A prospective analysis examining frailty remission and the association with future falls risk in older adults in England. Age Ageing 2023;52:afad003. doi:10.1093/ageing/afad003
    65. ↵
      1. Gill TM,
      2. Gahbauer EA,
      3. Allore HG, et al
      . Transitions between frailty states among community-living older persons. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:418–23. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.4.418
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    66. ↵
      1. Kojima G,
      2. Taniguchi Y,
      3. Iliffe S, et al
      . Transitions between frailty states among community-dwelling older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev 2019;50:81–8. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2019.01.010
      OpenUrlPubMed
    67. ↵
      1. Ofori-Asenso R,
      2. Lee Chin K,
      3. Mazidi M, et al
      . Natural regression of frailty among community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gerontol 2020;60:e286–98. doi:10.1093/geront/gnz064
      OpenUrl
    68. ↵
      1. Pollack LR,
      2. Litwack-Harrison S,
      3. Cawthon PM, et al
      . Patterns and predictors of frailty transitions in older men: the osteoporotic fractures in men study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2017;65:2473–9. doi:10.1111/jgs.15003
      OpenUrl
    69. ↵
      1. Welstead M,
      2. Jenkins ND,
      3. Russ TC, et al
      . A systematic review of frailty trajectories: their shape and influencing factors. Gerontologist 2021;61:e463–75. doi:10.1093/geront/gnaa061
      OpenUrlPubMed
    70. ↵
      1. Bautmans I,
      2. Knoop V,
      3. Amuthavalli Thiyagarajan J, et al
      . WHO working definition of vitality capacity for healthy longevity monitoring. Lancet Health Longev 2022;3:e789–96. doi:10.1016/S2666-7568(22)00200-8
      OpenUrl
    71. ↵
      1. World Health Organization
      . WHO clinical consortium on healthy ageing. 2016.
    72. ↵
      1. Durepos P,
      2. Sakamoto M,
      3. Alsbury K, et al
      . Older adults’ perceptions of frailty language: a scoping review. Can J Aging 2022;41:193–202. doi:10.1017/S0714980821000180
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    73. ↵
      1. Schoenborn NL,
      2. Van Pilsum Rasmussen SE,
      3. Xue Q-L, et al
      . Older adults' perceptions and informational needs regarding frailty. BMC Geriatr 2018;18:46. doi:10.1186/s12877-018-0741-3
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    74. ↵
      1. Shafiq S,
      2. Haith-Cooper M,
      3. Hawkins R, et al
      . What are lay UK public perceptions of frailty: a scoping review. Age Ageing 2023;52:afad045. doi:10.1093/ageing/afad045
    75. ↵
      1. World Health Organization
      . World report on ageing and health. Geneva World Health Organization Report No.: 9789241565042 9789240694798 (ePub) 9789240694804 (Daisy) 9789240694811 (PDF) 9789245565048 (Chinese) 9789244565049 (Russian); 2015.
    76. ↵
      1. Cesari M,
      2. Araujo de Carvalho I,
      3. Amuthavalli Thiyagarajan J, et al
      . Evidence for the domains supporting the construct of intrinsic capacity. J Gerontol 2018;73:1653–60. doi:10.1093/gerona/gly011
      OpenUrl
    77. ↵
      1. Belloni G,
      2. Cesari M
      . Frailty and intrinsic capacity: two distinct but related constructs. Front Med (Lausanne) 2019;6:133. doi:10.3389/fmed.2019.00133
      OpenUrl
    78. ↵
      1. Zhou Y,
      2. Ma L
      . Intrinsic capacity in older adults: recent advances. Aging Dis 2022;13:353–9. doi:10.14336/AD.2021.0818
      OpenUrl
    79. ↵
      1. Gonzalez-Bautista E,
      2. Andrieu S,
      3. Gutiérrez-Robledo LM, et al
      . In the quest of a standard index of intrinsic capacity. A critical literature review. J Nutr Health Aging 2020;24:959–65. doi:10.1007/s12603-020-1394-4
      OpenUrlPubMed
    80. ↵
      1. Spiers GF,
      2. Kunonga TP,
      3. Hall A, et al
      . Measuring frailty in younger populations: a rapid review of evidence. BMJ Open 2021;11:e047051. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047051
    81. ↵
      1. Sanchez-Rodriguez D,
      2. Bruyère O,
      3. Surquin M, et al
      . Towards a core outcome set (COS) for intrinsic capacity (IC) intervention studies in adults in midlife and beyond: a scoping review to identify frequently used outcomes and measurement tools. Aging Clin Exp Res 2024;36:54. doi:10.1007/s40520-023-02681-8
    82. ↵
      1. Beyene MB,
      2. Visvanathan R,
      3. Ahmed M, et al
      . Development and validation of an intrinsic capacity score in the UK Biobank study. Maturitas 2024;185. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2024.107976
    83. ↵
      1. Salinas-Rodríguez A,
      2. Fernández-Niño JA,
      3. Rivera-Almaraz A, et al
      . Intrinsic capacity trajectories and socioeconomic inequalities in health: the contributions of wealth, education, gender, and ethnicity. Int J Equity Health 2024;23:48. doi:10.1186/s12939-024-02136-0
    84. ↵
      1. Huang ZT,
      2. Lai ETC,
      3. Luo Y, et al
      . Social determinants of intrinsic capacity: a systematic review of observational studies. Ageing Res Rev 2024;95:102239. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2024.102239
      OpenUrl
    85. ↵
      1. Yang Y,
      2. Ma G,
      3. Wei S, et al
      . Adverse outcomes of intrinsic capacity in older adults: a scoping review. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2024;120:105335. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2024.105335
      OpenUrl
    86. ↵
      1. Merchant RA,
      2. Chan YH,
      3. Anbarasan D, et al
      . Association of intrinsic capacity with functional ability, sarcopenia and systemic inflammation in pre-frail older adults. Front Med (Lausanne) 2024;11:1374197. doi:10.3389/fmed.2024.1374197
      OpenUrl
    87. ↵
      1. Yıldırım Ayaz E,
      2. Dincer B,
      3. Mete E, et al
      . Evaluating the impact of aerobic and resistance green exercises on the fitness, aerobic and intrinsic capacity of older individuals. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2024;118:105281. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2023.105281
      OpenUrl
    88. ↵
      1. Koivunen K,
      2. Schaap LA,
      3. Hoogendijk EO, et al
      . Exploring the conceptual framework and measurement model of intrinsic capacity defined by the world health organization: a scoping review. Ageing Res Rev 2022;80:101685. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2022.101685
      OpenUrl
    89. ↵
      1. Vernon MJ
      . The politics of frailty. Age Ageing 2020;49:544–8. doi:10.1093/ageing/afaa023
      OpenUrl
    90. ↵
      1. Zhou K,
      2. Ng YS,
      3. Tay EL, et al
      . Intrinsic capacity assessment using world health organization integrated care for older people step 1, and the association with frailty in community dwelling older adults. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2024;24:457–63. doi:10.1111/ggi.14869
      OpenUrl
    91. ↵
      1. Huang S-T,
      2. Lu W-H,
      3. Lee W-J, et al
      . Dose-responsive impacts of social frailty on intrinsic capacity and healthy aging among community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults: stronger roles of social determinants over biomarkers. J Frailty Aging 2024;13:139–48. doi:10.14283/jfa.2024.8
      OpenUrl
    92. ↵
      1. Barreto PD,
      2. Rolland Y,
      3. Ferrucci L, et al
      . Looking at frailty and intrinsic capacity through a geroscience lens: the ICFSR & geroscience task force. Nat Aging 2023;3:1474–9. doi:10.1038/s43587-023-00531-w
      OpenUrl
    93. ↵
      1. World Health Organization
      . A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. Geneva World Health Organization; 2010.
    94. ↵
      1. Sadana R,
      2. Blas E,
      3. Budhwani S, et al
      . Healthy ageing: raising awareness of inequalities, determinants, and what could be done to improve health equity. GERONT 2016;56:S178–93. doi:10.1093/geront/gnw034
      OpenUrl
    95. ↵
      1. Abe T,
      2. Carver A,
      3. Sugiyama T
      . Associations of neighborhood built and social environments with frailty among mid‐to‐older aged Australian adults. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2021;21:893–9. doi:10.1111/ggi.14253
      OpenUrl
    96. ↵
      1. Hajat C,
      2. Stein E
      . The global burden of multiple chronic conditions: a narrative review. Prev Med Rep 2018;12:284–93. doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.10.008
      OpenUrl
    97. ↵
      1. Misra R,
      2. Madhavan SS,
      3. Dhumal T, et al
      . Prevalence and factors associated with diagnosed diabetes mellitus among Asian Indian adults in the United States. PLOS Glob Public Health 2023;3:e0001551. doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0001551
    98. ↵
      1. Asogwa OA,
      2. Boateng D,
      3. Marzà-Florensa A, et al
      . Multimorbidity of non-communicable diseases in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2022;12:e049133. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049133
    99. ↵
      1. Gordon EH,
      2. Hubbard RE
      . Frailty: understanding the difference between age and ageing. Age Ageing 2022;51:afac185. doi:10.1093/ageing/afac185
    100. ↵
      1. Bock J-O,
      2. König H-H,
      3. Brenner H, et al
      . Associations of frailty with health care costs – results of the ESTHER cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res 2016;16:128. doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1360-3
      OpenUrlPubMed
    101. ↵
      1. Hajek A,
      2. Bock J-O,
      3. Saum K-U, et al
      . Frailty and healthcare costs—longitudinal results of a prospective cohort study. Age Ageing 2018;47:233–41. doi:10.1093/ageing/afx157
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    102. ↵
      1. Sirven N,
      2. Rapp T
      . The cost of frailty in France. Eur J Health Econ 2017;18:243–53. doi:10.1007/s10198-016-0772-7
      OpenUrl
    103. ↵
      1. Kasajima M,
      2. Eggleston K,
      3. Kusaka S, et al
      . Projecting prevalence of frailty and dementia and the economic cost of care in Japan from 2016 to 2043: a microsimulation modelling study. Lancet Public Health 2022;7:e458–68. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00044-5
      OpenUrl
    104. ↵
      1. Lee DR,
      2. Santo EC,
      3. Lo JC, et al
      . Understanding functional and social risk characteristics of frail older adults: a cross-sectional survey study. BMC Fam Pract 2018;19:170. doi:10.1186/s12875-018-0851-1
      OpenUrl
    105. ↵
      1. Majid Z,
      2. Welch C,
      3. Davies J, et al
      . Global frailty: the role of ethnicity, migration and socioeconomic factors. Maturitas 2020;139:33–41. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2020.05.010
      OpenUrlPubMed
    106. ↵
      1. Wang J,
      2. Hulme C
      . Frailty and socioeconomic status: a systematic review. J Public Health Res 2021;10:2036. doi:10.4081/jphr.2021.2036
      OpenUrl
    107. ↵
      1. Yang F,
      2. Pang JS
      . Socioeconomic status, frailty, and subjective well-being: a moderated mediation analysis in elderly Chinese. J Health Psychol 2018;23:961–70. doi:10.1177/1359105316675211
      OpenUrl
    108. ↵
      1. Yong S-J,
      2. Gwini SM,
      3. Tembo MC, et al
      . Frailty associations with socioeconomic status, healthcare utilisation and quality of life among older women residing in regional Australia. J Frailty Sarcopenia Falls 2021;6:209–17. doi:10.22540/JFSF-06-209
      OpenUrl
    109. ↵
      1. Zhou W,
      2. Hou J,
      3. Sun M, et al
      . The impact of family socioeconomic status on elderly health in China: based on the frailty index. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19:968. doi:10.3390/ijerph19020968
      OpenUrl
    110. ↵
      1. International labour organization
      . What about seniors? A quick analysis of the situation of older persons in the labour market. International labour organization; 2018.
    111. ↵
      1. Jayawardhana T,
      2. Anuththara S,
      3. Nimnadi T, et al
      . Asian ageing: the relationship between the elderly population and economic growth in the Asian context. PLOS ONE 2023;18:e0284895. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284895
    112. ↵
      1. Puts MTE,
      2. Toubasi S,
      3. Andrew MK, et al
      . Interventions to prevent or reduce the level of frailty in community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review of the literature and international policies. Age Ageing 2017;46:383–92. doi:10.1093/ageing/afw247
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    113. ↵
      1. World Bank
      . World Bank country and lending groups. 2023. Available: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups
    114. ↵
      1. Rockwood K,
      2. Mitnitski A
      . Frailty in relation to the accumulation of deficits. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2007;62:722–7. doi:10.1093/gerona/62.7.722
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    115. ↵
      1. World Health Organization
      . Noncommunicable diseases. 2023. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases
      1. Rockwood K
      . A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. Can Med Assoc J 2005;173:489–95:489. doi:10.1503/cmaj.050051
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Rolfson DB,
      2. Majumdar SR,
      3. Tsuyuki RT, et al
      . Validity and reliability of the edmonton frail scale. Age Ageing 2006;35:526–9. doi:10.1093/ageing/afl041
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Morley JE,
      2. Malmstrom TK,
      3. Miller DK
      . Simple frailty questionnaire (FRAIL) predicts outcomes in middle aged African Americans. J Nutr Health Aging 2012;16:601–8. doi:10.1007/s12603-012-0084-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Jones DM,
      2. Song X,
      3. Rockwood K
      . Operationalizing a frailty index from a standardized comprehensive geriatric assessment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52:1929–33. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52521.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Vellas B,
      2. Balardy L,
      3. Gillette-Guyonnet S, et al
      . Looking for frailty in community-dwelling older persons: the gerontopole frailty screening tool (GFST). J Nutr Health Aging 2013;17:629–31. doi:10.1007/s12603-013-0363-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Satake S,
      2. Senda K,
      3. Hong Y-J, et al
      . Validity of the kihon checklist for assessing frailty status. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2016;16:709–15. doi:10.1111/ggi.12543
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Pilotto A,
      2. Ferrucci L,
      3. Franceschi M, et al
      . Development and validation of a multidimensional prognostic index for one-year mortality from comprehensive geriatric assessment in hospitalized older patients. Rejuvenation Res 2008;11:151–61. doi:10.1089/rej.2007.0569
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Romero-Ortuno R,
      2. Walsh CD,
      3. Lawlor BA, et al
      . A frailty instrument for primary care: findings from the survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe (SHARE). BMC Geriatr 2010;10:57. doi:10.1186/1471-2318-10-57
      1. Gobbens RJJ,
      2. van Assen MALM,
      3. Luijkx KG, et al
      . The Tilburg frailty indicator: psychometric properties. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2010;11:344–55. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2009.11.003
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Adebusoye LA,
      2. Cadmus EO,
      3. Owolabi MO, et al
      . Frailty and mortality among older patients in a tertiary hospital in Nigeria. Ghana Med J 2019;53:210–6. doi:10.4314/gmj.v53i3.5
      OpenUrlPubMed
      1. Ajayi SA,
      2. Adebusoye LA,
      3. Olowookere OO, et al
      . Prevalence and correlates of frailty syndrome among older adults attending chief Tony Anenih geriatric centre, University college hospital, Ibadan. West Afr J Med 2021;38:255–67.
      OpenUrlPubMed
      1. National senior citizens centre
      . National senior citizens centre. 2023. Available: https://nscc.gov.ng/
      1. Saravanakumar P,
      2. Balachandran A,
      3. Muhammad T, et al
      . Wealth disparity and frailty among community-dwelling older adults in India. BMC Public Health 2022;22:2123. doi:10.1186/s12889-022-14434-9
      OpenUrl
      1. Singhal S,
      2. Singh S,
      3. Dewangan GC, et al
      . The prevalence of frailty and its relationship with sociodemographic factors, regional healthcare disparities, and healthcare utilization in the aging population across India. Aging Med (Milton) 2023;6:212–21. doi:10.1002/agm2.12263
      OpenUrl
      1. Panda M,
      2. Pathak R,
      3. Islam F, et al
      . Interplay of multimorbidity and polypharmacy on a community dwelling frail elderly cohort in the peri-urban slums of Delhi, India. J Family Med Prim Care 2020;9:1647–55. doi:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_945_19
      OpenUrl
      1. Rath RS,
      2. Kumar R,
      3. Amarchand R, et al
      . Frailty, disability, and mortality in a rural community-dwelling elderly cohort from northern India. Indian J Community Med 2021;46:442–5. doi:10.4103/ijcm.IJCM_616_20
      OpenUrl
      1. Gopinathan JC,
      2. Hafeeq B,
      3. Aziz F, et al
      . The prevalence of frailty and its association with cognitive dysfunction among elderly patients on maintenance hemodialysis: a cross-sectional study from South India. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2020;31:767–74. doi:10.4103/1319-2442.292310
      OpenUrl
      1. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
      . Detailed brief of NPHCE. 2024.
      1. Ma L,
      2. Chhetri JK,
      3. Chan P
      . Frailty in China: from research to practice. J Nutr Health Aging 2021;25:479–83. doi:10.1007/s12603-021-1593-7
      OpenUrl
      1. Ning C,
      2. Pei H,
      3. Huang Y, et al
      . Does the healthy China 2030 policy improve people’s health? Empirical evidence based on the difference-in-differences approach. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2024;17:65–77. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S439581
      OpenUrl
      1. Irigoyen-Camacho ME,
      2. Velazquez-Alva MC,
      3. Zepeda-Zepeda MA, et al
      . Relationship of frailty, nutritional status and oral health-related quality of life in Mexico city nursing home residents. J Frailty Aging 2023;13:10–20. doi:10.14283/jfa.2023.29
      OpenUrl
      1. Patiño-Hernández D,
      2. Pérez-Bautista ÓG,
      3. Pérez-Zepeda MU, et al
      . Does the association between smoking and mortality differ due to frailty status? A secondary analysis from the Mexican health and aging study. Age Ageing 2022;51:afac280. doi:10.1093/ageing/afac280
      1. Borrajo LC,
      2. Valenciano MS
      . Trajectories of frailty and related factors of elderly people in Mexico labor force participation during COVID-19 economic crisis in Mexico: care work demands and differential recovery between men and women. Pobl y Salud en Mesoam 2022;20:47–77.
      OpenUrl
      1. Rojas Huerta AV
      . Trajectories of frailty and related factors of elderly people in Mexico. Poblac Salud Mesoam 2022;19. doi:10.15517/psm.v19i2.46929
      1. Gutiérrez-Robledo LM,
      2. García-Chanes RE,
      3. González-Bautista E, et al
      . Validation of two intrinsic capacity scales and its relationship with frailty and other outcomes in Mexican community-dwelling older adults. J Nutr Health Aging 2021;25:33–40. doi:10.1007/s12603-020-1555-5
      OpenUrlPubMed
      1. Non-contributory social protection programmes database: Latin America and the Caribbean
      . Pension for the well-being of older people / Pensión para El Bienestar de Las Personas Adultas Mayores. 2019. Available: https://dds.cepal.org/bpsnc/programme?id=173
      1. Damasceno VAM,
      2. Zazzetta MS,
      3. Orlandi F de S
      . Translation, adaptation, and reliability of a social frailty scale for the Brazilian context: a methodological study. Sao Paulo Med J 2023;141:45–50. doi:10.1590/1516-3180.2022.0020.07042022
      OpenUrl
      1. Rodrigues MK,
      2. Nunes Rodrigues I,
      3. Vasconcelos Gomes da Silva DJ, et al
      . Clinical frailty scale: translation and cultural adaptation into the Brazilian Portuguese language. J Frailty Aging 2021;10:38–43. doi:10.14283/jfa.2020.7
      OpenUrl
      1. Mesquita WDR,
      2. Ricci NA
      . What do Brazilian health professionals know about the frailty syndrome? A cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr 2022;22:232. doi:10.1186/s12877-022-02927-6
      1. Montaño-Castellón I,
      2. Zeballos D,
      3. Gutiérrez-Peredo G, et al
      . High prevalence of frailty and prefrailty status in Brazilian patients living with HIV. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2021;37:335–42. doi:10.1089/AID.2020.0113
      OpenUrl
      1. Leopoldino AAO,
      2. Megale RZ,
      3. Diz JBM, et al
      . Influence of frailty status on pain, disability, and quality of life in older adults with acute low back pain: results from the back complaints in the elders (BACE-Brazil) study. Can J Aging 2021;40:367–75. doi:10.1017/S0714980820000288
      OpenUrl
      1. Melo RC de,
      2. Cervato CJ,
      3. Aprahamian I, et al
      . Identifying and managing frailty in Brazil: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth 2020;18:849–56. doi:10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00188
      OpenUrl
      1. Lourenço R,
      2. Moreira V,
      3. Mello R, et al
      . Brazilian consensus on frailty in older people: concepts, epidemiology and evaluation instruments. Geriatr Gerontol Aging 2018;12:121–35.
      OpenUrl
      1. Ahmad NS,
      2. Hairi NN,
      3. Said MA, et al
      . Prevalence, transitions and factors predicting transition between frailty states among rural community-dwelling older adults in Malaysia. PLOS ONE 2018;13:e0206445. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0206445
      1. Norazman CW,
      2. Adznam SN,
      3. Jamaluddin R
      . Physical frailty among urban-living community-dwelling older adults in Malaysia. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:6549. doi:10.3390/ijerph17186549
      1. Shaharudin MI,
      2. Abd Rahman NFN
      . Prevalence of frailty and its standardised assessment tools among Malaysian older person: a systematic review. Malays J Med Sci 2022;29:34–45. doi:10.21315/mjms2022.29.6.4
      OpenUrl
      1. Ahip SS,
      2. Theou O,
      3. Shariff-Ghazali S, et al
      . The pictorial fit-frail scale Malay version (PFFS-M): predictive validity testing in Malaysian primary care. J Frailty Aging 2024;13:35–9.
      OpenUrl
      1. Aravindhan K,
      2. Mat S,
      3. Bahyah S, et al
      . Comparing four frailty assessment tools against seven-year mortality in the Malaysian elders longitudinal research study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2024;118:105304. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2023.105304
      OpenUrl

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Seema Biswas

    • Contributors Conceptualisation and methodology: SDD and ERLCV. Writing–original draft: SDD and ERLCV. Writing–critical reviewing and editing: AH, AQAminu, AAkpan, CT and ERLCV. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

    • Funding This paper presents independent research funded under the Dunhill Medical Trust (grant number: PDM2202\9), National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration - Greater Manchester (grant number: NIHR20017405156), National Institute for Health and Care Research Policy Research Unit in Older People and Frailty (grant number: PR-PRU-1217-21502) / Healthy Ageing (grant number: NIHR206119) and the University of Manchester. CT and ERLCV are co-investigators on the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Applied Research Collaboration - Greater Manchester (NIHR200174). AQA's role is funded through the National Institute for Health and Care Research Policy Research Unit in Older People and Frailty / Healthy Ageing (funding reference: PR-PRU-1217-2150). CT is principal investigator and AH is a co-investigator on the National Institute for Health and Care Research Policy Research Unit in Older People and Frailty / Healthy Ageing (funding reference: NIHR PR-PRU-1217-21502). As of 01.01.24, the Unit has been renamed to the National Institute for Health and Care Research Policy Research Unit in Healthy Ageing (reference: NIHR206119).

    • Disclaimer The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the Department of Health and Social Care or its partner organisations.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.