Frailty was based on an internationally established cumulative deficit model that utilises an electronic Frailty Index (eFI).16 –18 (link) eFI scores were used to categorise individuals as: fit, mild, moderate, or severely frail using 10 years of previous WLGP data from date of diagnosis. Individuals without sufficient coverage of GP data were assigned to a missing category. Learning disability status (yes/no) was identified for the study cohort using Read v2 codes (Supplementary Table S4). Socioeconomic categories with one to four counts were rounded to five to prevent accidental disclosure and the excess counts deducted from an unknown/missing/adjacent category.
Epidemiology of Long-Term Conditions
Frailty was based on an internationally established cumulative deficit model that utilises an electronic Frailty Index (eFI).16 –18 (link) eFI scores were used to categorise individuals as: fit, mild, moderate, or severely frail using 10 years of previous WLGP data from date of diagnosis. Individuals without sufficient coverage of GP data were assigned to a missing category. Learning disability status (yes/no) was identified for the study cohort using Read v2 codes (Supplementary Table S4). Socioeconomic categories with one to four counts were rounded to five to prevent accidental disclosure and the excess counts deducted from an unknown/missing/adjacent category.
Corresponding Organization :
Other organizations : Swansea University, Cardiff University, Welsh Government, Bangor University
Variable analysis
- Age at the earliest found diagnosis date (<20, 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70–79, 80–89, ≥90 years)
- Sex (male/female)
- Ethnic groups (White/Black/Asian/Mixed/other/unknown)
- Deprivation (1, most deprived, to 5, least deprived)
- Frailty (fit, mild, moderate, or severely frail)
- Monthly incidence of individuals diagnosed with a long-term condition for the first time
- Learning disability status (yes/no)
- Independent variables not explicitly mentioned.
- Dependent variables not explicitly mentioned.
- Positive and negative controls not specified.
Annotations
Based on most similar protocols
As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!