ArticleBMC primary care2025
The Edmonton frail scale: a feasibility study on assessing frailty among older adults with multimorbidity in Norwegian primary health care.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe growing prevalence of multimorbidity and frailty, driven by an ageing population and changing health trends, is placing significant pressure on healthcare systems. Frailty assessments provide valuable insights into patient vulnerability, allowing for early interventions to prevent functional decline and reduce hospitalisations. Despite their importance, standardised frailty assessment instruments are not widely used in primary care. This study investigated the feasibility of using one such instrument, the multidimensional Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), in Norwegian primary healthcare.
methodsThis feasibility study involved 14 healthcare professionals (10 physiotherapists and four nurses) from primary healthcare in three Norwegian municipalities. Participants were trained to use the EFS to assess and generate frailty scores. Four focus group interviews explored these professionals' experiences of using the EFS with home-dwelling older adults with multimorbidity. The EFS scores were analysed with descriptive statistics, and the interview data underwent reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsThrough interview analysis, we identified three main themes: (i) enabling collaborative planning, (ii) facilitating comprehensive assessments, and (iii) integrating and understanding EFS competently. The assessment of frailty using the EFS among home-dwelling older adults with multimorbidity (n = 86) revealed scores ranging from 2 to 14, with 2% of these adults categorised as fit, 18% as pre-frail and 80% as frail. Most participants failed the clock test, and many had been hospitalised in the past year. Despite these challenges, 83% reported very good or fair self-perceived health, though the EFS scores indicated significant dependency in daily activities. Polypharmacy was common, with three-quarters of patients taking five or more medications. Additionally, recent weight loss, mobility issues and sadness or depression were frequently reported.
conclusionsThe EFS supported collaborative care planning by identifying frailty domains, facilitating tailored interventions to address challenges such as polypharmacy, mobility issues, emotional well-being, and dependency in daily activities. The themes of collaborative care, comprehensive assessments, and competent integration highlight the EFS's potential as a multidimensional instrument for routine use in primary care. With proper healthcare professional training, the EFS can promote person-centred care, improve overall care quality and support the early detection and prevention of complications, addressing the complex needs of older adults with multimorbidity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.