
==== Front
Age Ageing
Age Ageing
ageing
Age and Ageing
0002-0729
1468-2834
Oxford University Press

39113468
10.1093/ageing/afae170
afae170
Research Paper
AcademicSubjects/MED00280
ageing/15
ageing/19
Revisiting unstable disability and the fluctuations of frailty: a measurement burst approach
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7393-1568
Stolz Erwin Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria

Schultz Anna Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8708-8831
Mayerl Hannes Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1273-6520
Roller-Wirnsberger Regina Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria

Clegg Andrew Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

Address correspondence to: Erwin Stolz, Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Medical University of Graz, Neue Stiftingtalstraße 6, Med Campus West/P07, 8010 Graz, Austria. Tel: 0043 316 385 71587; Email: erwin.stolz@medunigraz.at
8 2024
08 8 2024
08 8 2024
53 8 afae17006 3 2024
19 6 2024
28 6 2024
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

It has been hypothesised that frailty is the root cause of clinically observed but rarely systematically measured unstable disability among older adults. In this study, we measure the extent of short-term disability fluctuations and estimate their association with frailty using intensive longitudinal data.

Methods

Repeated measurements of disability were collected under a measurement burst design in the FRequent health Assessment In Later life (FRAIL70+) study. A total of 426 community-dwelling older adults (70+) in Austria were interviewed about difficulties with basic, instrumental and mobility-related activities of daily living biweekly up to a total of 14 times in two measurement bursts (2891 and 2192 observations). Baseline frailty was assessed with both physical frailty (FP) and the frailty index (FI). Disability fluctuations were measured with the intra-individual interquartile range (iIQR) and estimated with a two-step generalised mixed regression procedure.

Results

Fewer participants were frail at baseline according to FP (11%) than FI (32%). Frail study participants reported not only more severe disability but also had more short-term disability fluctuations (iIQR = 1.0–1.5) compared with their robust counterparts (iIQR = 0). Regression models indicated that baseline frailty was associated with 2–3 times larger short-term disability fluctuations, which were also more prevalent among women, and increased with age and disability severity.

Conclusion

Compared with those who were robust, frail older adults were characterised by not only more severe but also more unstable disability. Short-term disability fluctuations are closely tied to disability severity. Future studies should assess both stressors that may cause disability fluctuations among frail older adults as well as their potential consequences to inform frailty-centred care.

disability
frailty
short-term fluctuations
intra-individual variability
measurement burst design
older people
==== Body
pmcKey Points

Frailty is associated with increasingly unstable disability over the course of weeks.

On average, disability fluctuated by one activity difficulty among older adults with frailty.

Disability fluctuations were also more prevalent among women and increased with age and disability severity.

Introduction

Background

Frailty results from a cumulative decline in multiple physiological systems, and is defined as a state of increased vulnerability to (minor) stressors resulting in adverse health outcomes among older adults [1]. Frailty increases with age [2], and is fairly common among older adults: a meta-analysis estimated that depending on the instrument, 12%–24% of community-dwelling older adults (50+) are frail [3]. Frailty has major implications for clinical practice and public health [2], and can help in identifying older individuals at risk for falls [4], disability [5] and mortality [6], which in turn can guide targeted care efforts [7].

Research into frailty has proliferated during last two decades fuelled by two seminal papers [8, 9], which outlined, what would later become the two dominant operationalisations of frailty [10], i.e. physical or phenotype frailty (FP) and the frailty index (FI) [11]. FP [8, 12–14] is defined as a clinical syndrome of having three or more out of five designated criteria (weight loss, exhaustion, poor grip strength, slow gait speed and low physical activity). The FI [9, 15–17], on the other hand, measures the degree of frailty in a continuous manner by summing up a large number (30+) of non-predetermined, age-related health deficits, which can subsequently also be used to classify frail and robust older adults [18].

The cumulative decline across multiple physiological systems that characterises frailty can potentially manifest as unstable disability [19]. This can be understood as short-term fluctuations in functioning when small precipitants such as a change in the weather, the drug regime or an infection results in a sudden increase in disability—typically loss of independence in one or more activities of daily living—that then reverses back over the following days and weeks. Although such disability fluctuations (I) have been reported by medical practitioners, (II) have been integrated into conceptualisations of frailty [1], and (III) might have negative consequences for both disabled older adults and familial caregivers as well as professional care providers—e.g. with regard to assessment of disability and predictability of everyday life—the hypothesised association between frailty and unstable disability has rarely been assessed empirically. This is perhaps surprising, as (physical) frailty has been conceptualised and empirically confirmed as an important cause of disability [5, 8, 12] among older adults, and late-life disability has been shown to be dynamic [20–23]. One reason why these two strands of research have rarely been connected is likely because the intensive longitudinal data required to assess instability or fluctuations, i.e. multiple repeated measurements of disability over a short-period of time, are generally scarce.

Objectives

The main objective of this study was to address this evidence gap by assessing whether frailty is associated with short-term fluctuations in disability among older adults using newly available intensive longitudinal data from a nationwide measurement burst study.

Methods

Study design

In the FRequent health Assessment In Later life (FRAIL70+) study, longitudinal data were collected under a measurement burst design [24, 25], where multiple bursts consisting of repeated intensive longitudinal assessments allow for the assessment of both short-term fluctuations (within bursts) and long-term changes (between bursts).

Setting and participants

A professional survey agency collected health-related information in a nation-wide sample of 426 community-dwelling older adults aged 70 years and above in Austria (Supplementary Methods 1). Two measurement bursts (burst 1: n = 426, burst 2: n = 378), each running about 3 months (mean run time: burst 1 = 87 ± 13 days; burst 2 = 76 ± 11 days), were conducted 12 months apart between September of 2021 and January 2023 (Supplementary Figure 1). In each burst, participants were interviewed approximately every 2 weeks, up to seven times. The first interview of each burst was conducted in person in the older adult’s home; follow-up interviews were generally conducted by phone, except for a 10% subsample for which all interviews during the first burst were in-person in order to assess potential interview mode effects. Before participation, interviewers described content, length and required information of the study, ensured anonymity of all personal data and obtained written consent. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical University of Graz (EK-number: 33-243 ex 20/21 1035-2021).

Variables

Disability was measured repeatedly based on difficulties (no/yes) participants reported having had during the last 2 weeks in six activities of daily living [26] (ADLs: dressing, walking across room, bathing/showering, eating, get in/out of bed, use toilet), four instrumental activities of daily living [27] (IADLs: prepare a warm meal, shop groceries, use telephone, take medication) and four mobility-related activities [28] (walking 100 m, climb one flight of stairs, extend arms above should level, lift/carry 5 kg) (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2). The overall level of disability at each measurement point was calculated as the sum of present activity difficulties (range = 0–14) [29, 30]. Internal consistency reliability of this sum index based on confirmatory factor analysis was adequate as estimated by coefficient omega (0.75 in both bursts). Test–retest reliability was also adequate as indicated by the average Spearman correlation coefficient between adjacent measurements of 0.78 (burst 1) and 0.83 (burst 2). For more details, see Supplementary Methods 2.

Frailty was measured in the first interview of the first measurement burst by both (i) FP [8] and (ii) the FI [16]. (i) Calculation of FP was based on five criteria: slow walking speed, muscle weakness, low physical activity, exhaustion and low appetite or being underweight as proxy variables [31] for weight loss. Slow walking speed was measured as belonging to the lowest 20% in gait speed (minimum of two trials over 2.5 m) in seconds. Muscle weakness was based on previously specified sex- and body mass index (BMI)-specific grip strength values (Supplementary Table 3), measured as the maximum reading (in kg) over four trials (two per each hand) with a handheld dynamometer (Smedley S Dynamometer, TTM, Tokyo, 100 kg). Participants who could not perform the walking speed or grip strength test were considered to fulfil the respective criterion. Low physical activity was based on an item asking the participants how often they engaged in activities that require a low or moderate level of energy such as gardening, cleaning the car or doing a walk. If participants answered less often than weekly, they were considered exhibiting low physical activity. The exhaustion criterion was based on two items from the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). The criterion was met if participants answered ‘often or always’ when asked how often in the last 2 weeks they felt ‘Everything I did was an effort’ or ‘I could not get going’. Finally, low appetite/being underweight was based on reporting often or always to have poor appetite or a BMI < 18.5. Participants were classified as frail if they met three or more of these criteria. (ii) Calculation of the FI was based on 33 health deficits (Supplementary Table 3), which included self-reported information on chronic diseases and polypharmacy, somatic symptoms such as pain, tiredness and dizziness, bedrest and falls, depressive symptoms (CES-D), sensory impairment, physical inactivity, poor self-rated health as well as poor physical (slow gait speed, slow chair rise test scores, weak grip strength), and cognitive performance (attention, short-term memory). FI calculation followed standard protocol [32, 33] except that no disability measures were included in the FI. The FI was calculated for all participants by dividing the sum of the health deficit score by the total number of health deficits measured, e.g. 8/35 = 0.23. As cut-off value to differentiate between non-frail and frail older adults, 0.25 [18] was used.

Sociodemographic variables included sex (male/female), chronological age (years), level of completed education (low = compulsory education, medium = vocational training, high = high school or higher) and living alone (no/yes).

Statistical methods

Given the discreteness and skew of the outcome (i.e. disability), we calculated the intra-individual median (iMD) to describe the average disability severity and the intra-individual interquartile range (iIQR) to quantify short-term disability fluctuations for each burst. Specifically, the iIQR quantifies the middle 50% of biweekly within-person disability variability. Then, we assessed differences in iMD and iIQR by baseline FP/FI status. To isolate the effect of baseline frailty on short-term disability fluctuations from sociodemographic characteristics, particularly chronological age, we used a two-step approach: first, given the discreteness, skew, potential floor effects and upper bound (=14) of the outcome, we tested several generalised linear mixed model variants to analyse disability severity, of which the zero-inflated beta-binomial model clearly provided the best fit (Supplementary Table 4). Then, we extracted observation-level residuals from these models, which represent the vertical deviations from individual-specific (random intercept and slope) disability trajectories within each measurement burst (Supplementary Figure 2). The absolutized observation-level residuals were then modelled as outcomes in a second step using again mixed regression models. For more details on the statistical approach, see Supplementary Methods 3. Finally, there were some missing values in a few participants (n = 12, 2.8%) in one or more of the five FP criteria, i.e. when participants did not provide a valid answer or did not want to perform a test, which we addressed with a random forest imputation procedure, which classified one additional participant as frail and the remaining 11 as robust (out-of-bag error = 0.04).

Results

Participants and descriptive data

From the 426 participants at baseline, 64.6% were women, 66% lived alone and mean age was 77.3 (SD = 5.4, range = 70–96) years. Low education was reported by 19.3%, medium by 54.2% and high by 26.5%. In the first measurement burst, 425 participants provided 2891 repeated observations of disability, and 375 participants (88% of the baseline sample) provided another 2192 observations in the second burst. Fewer older adults were classified as frail according to FP (11.0%, n = 47) than according to the FI instrument (34.5%, n = 147). Overlap between the two frailty approaches was moderate (Cohen’s kappa = 0.36): 277 individuals were classified as robust by both instruments, 45 older adults were frail according to both instruments, 102 were frail only according to the FI and 2 only according to FP. More information on sample characteristics is provided in Table 1.

Table 1 Sample characteristics (baseline)

	Total	Physical frailty	Frailty index	
		Robust	Frail	Robust	Frail	
	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	
Men	151 (35.4)	139 (92.1)	12 (7.9)	113 (74.8)	38 (25.2)	
Women	275 (64.6)	240 (87.3)	35 (12.7)	166 (60.4)	109 (39.6)	
Low education	82 (19.3)	67 (81.7)	15 (18.3)	33 (40.2)	49 (59.8)	
Medium education	231 (54.2)	203 (87.9)	28 (12.1)	151 (65.4)	80 (34.6)	
High education	113 (26.5)	109 (96.5)	4 (3.5)	95 (84.1)	18 (15.9)	
Living alone	145 (34.0)	132 (91.0)	13 (9.0)	109 (75.2)	36 (24.8)	
Living with others	281 (66.0)	247 (87.9)	34 (12.1)	170 (60.5)	111 (39.5)	
	Median (IQR)	Median (IQR)	Median (IQR)	Median (IQR)	Median (IQR)	
Age	76.8 (8.0)	76.3 (7.8)	79.9 (6.7)	75.3 (7.3)	78.8 (8.0)	
Baseline disability	0 (2)	0 (1)	6 (4.5)	0 (1)	3 (4)	
Unweighted data, n = 426. IQR = interquartile range.

Main results

The distribution of the number of reported functional limitations was highly right-skewed in both bursts (Supplementary Figure 3), i.e. more than half of the community-dwelling participants reported no functional limitations, and, for those who reported any, most had difficulties with ≤4 activities. The proportion of participants who reported difficulties in any activity ranged between 37% and 44% in the first and 41% and 44% in the second burst. Consequently, the average iMD in the total sample was zero in both bursts. iMDs correlated strongly across bursts (r = 0.82), i.e. changes in iMD over 1 year were limited: among those who participated in both bursts, about two-thirds (64.0%) had no change, iMD decreased in 11.7% and increased in 24.3% of the participants. Median iIQR was 0 in the total sample and correlated substantially with iMD: r = 0.57 in burst 1 and 0.62 in burst 2.

Both iMD and iIQR varied according to frailty status. Figure 1 illustrates the nature of disability fluctuations (iIQR), showing the measured number of difficulties during the first measurement burst for 40 randomly sampled participants, 20 of whom were robust and 20 were frail (FP). It shows that frail older adults were not only more severely disabled on average, but that they also had often highly stochastic (random) disability trajectories, sometimes including large increases and decreases across few weeks. These results extend to the full sample: frail older adults were not only more disabled according to both instruments (FP: iMD = 4 vs. 0; FI: iMD = 3 vs. 0) but also had more disability fluctuations, i.e. a median iIQR of 1–1.5 compared with 0 among robust older adults.

Figure 1 Repeatedly measured number of limitations for randomly selected robust and FP older adults during the first measurement burst. Each facet contains repeated disability measurements (points) of one individual older adult. FP = physical frailty, which describes average disability fluctuations (=middle 50% of intraindividual variability).

Figure 2 shows the predicted and adjusted effect of baseline frailty on disability severity and fluctuations in both bursts based on the regression models. While adjustment reduced differences attributable to frailty, there is still a clear difference: frail older adults were more severely disabled during both the first and the second burst and also had 2–3 times more short-term disability fluctuations. Results from the regression models (Supplementary Tables 4 and 5) further indicated that independently of frailty status, fluctuations were higher among women (+10%–57%) than men and increased with chronological age (+3%–6% per year) and particularly with disability severity (+47%–73% per activity difficulty).

Figure 2 Estimated disability level and disability fluctuations by frailty status and measurement burst. Results based on regression models, point estimates represent the mean of the posterior distribution, and error bars represent 95% credible intervals. Estimates refer to women of average age with medium level education who live alone and with average disability severity. FP = phenotype frailty.

Discussion

Key results

In this analysis, we have identified that frailty is associated with increasingly unstable disability over the course of weeks, along with more severe disability in general. Our findings were consistent across the FP and FI as the two established frailty models. Alongside frailty, older age, female sex and more severe disability were also associated with increasing disability fluctuations. We found that disability fluctuated by one activity difficulty among older adults with frailty, which is considerable against the average of 3–4 difficulties reported in this group. Strengths of the study include the measurement burst design including up to 14 repeated biweekly measurements of disability in a nation-wide sample of community-dwelling older adults and the dual operationalization of frailty.

In our study, disability severity, i.e. the number of difficulties reported, and the extent of short-term disability fluctuations were closely correlated, which, together with the increase with age of the latter, suggests that short-term disability fluctuations could be an inherent characteristic in the disabling process [34, 35]. It could be helpful clinically to view a single disability assessment in an older individual not as a definitive and stable indicator, but just one data-point in a person’s long-term disability trajectory, which becomes more unstable as disability severity increases [36].

Limitations

Although the data stemmed from a nation-wide sampling frame and the response rate were comparable to the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) in Austria, there was evidence of sample selection. Hence, we expect that the prevalence of frailty is somewhat higher, and the level of disability as well as the extent of short-term disability fluctuations are also likely higher in the population than in the sampled older adults analysed here. It might be argued that (some of) the short-term fluctuations of disability we found in this study may be due to measurement error given that disability was self-reported. However, both internal consistency and test–retest reliability of overall disability were adequate in the current study, so that a majority of the biweekly disability changes over the course of the two 3-month periods likely represent true changes in disability. Moreover, both size and systematic patterning of short-term disability fluctuations suggest that they do not just reflect random measurement error. Nonetheless, future studies could rely on repeated performance measures to quantify short-term fluctuations in physical function over days and weeks [37] more precisely, or utilise newly available high-frequency measurements from wearables [38] to obtain insights into fluctuations in daily living among older adults.

While our results support that there is a relationship between frailty and unstable disability, it is unclear whether short-term disability fluctuations qualify as an adverse outcome in their own right, e.g. whether they impact well-being negatively beyond disability severity (e.g. due to reduced predictability of activities), and/or whether they have added prognostic value, e.g. with regard to nursing home admission or mortality. Also, disability may fluctuate even more frequently among older people with frailty, e.g. on a daily basis, which we could not capture with the biweekly assessments.

Findings in context of previous research

Previous research [5, 8, 12] has tended to study the relationship between frailty and disability over extended time horizons between each assessment. One exemption to this is the precipitating events project (PEP) study [39], where disability has been measured monthly over many years among 754 health insurance plan members in the USA. Our results here are in line with an earlier PEP-based study [36], which also estimated disability fluctuations amounting to one ADL/IADL during the last 5 years of life. Before that, Hardy et al. [40] had examined disability in PEP to find that transitions between independence and ADL-disability were not only common, but that both the number of transitions between independence and disability as well as disability episodes (defined as independence followed by disability followed by recovery) were more prevalent among physically frail older adults compared with their robust counterparts. Our results are compatible with these findings, despite considerable differences in research design and data analysis, i.e. we used a continuous disability measurement, included both major operationalisations of frailty (FP [8] and FI [9]), and relied on a shorter but more intensive measurement burst design [24, 25] instead. In another PEP-based study, Gill et al. [41] delineated different disability subtypes, finding that FP predicted ‘long-term’ (6+ months), but also ‘recurrent’ (2 episodes, none lasting 6 months) and ‘unstable’ (3+ episodes, none lasting 6 months) disability, which again is compatible with our results.

Interpretation

These novel findings lend support to the theoretical construct of frailty, providing new evidence for disability fluctuations that have been hypothesised to exist as a core feature. Notably, our data suggest that, in frailty, disability fluctuates over multiple weeks rather than just across 6 months or more as the usual time horizon of previous studies, and that these fluctuations are ongoing and stochastic.

Generalisability

We expect our findings, based on a nationwide cohort, to apply to community-dwelling older adults, particularly those aged 70 years and over and those living in European countries similar to Austria.

Supplementary Material

aa-24-0461-File002_afae170

Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Declaration of Sources of Funding

Data collection of the FRAIL70+ study was funded by a grant from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF, P33673).
==== Refs
References

1. Clegg  A, Young  J, Iliffe  S  et al.  Frailty in elderly people. Lancet  2013; 381 : 752–62.23395245
2. Hoogendijk  EO, Afilalo  J, Ensrud  KE  et al.  Frailty: implications for clinical practice and public health. Lancet  2019; 394 : 1365–75.31609228
3. O’Caoimh  R, Sezgin  D, 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 : 96–104.33068107
4. Kojima  G . Frailty as a predictor of future falls among community-dwelling older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc  2015; 16 : 1027–33.26255098
5. Kojima  G . Frailty as a predictor of disabilities among community-dwelling older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Disabil Rehabil  2017; 39 : 1897–908.27558741
6. Peng  Y, Zhong  GC, Zhou  X  et al.  Frailty and risks of all-cause and cause-specific death in community-dwelling adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Geriatr  2022; 22 : 725.36056319
7. Boreskie  KF, Hay  JL, Boreskie  PE  et al.  Frailty-aware care: giving value to frailty assessment across different healthcare settings. BMC Geriatr  2022; 22 : 13.34979966
8. Fried  LP, Tangen  CM, Walston  J  et al.  Frailty in older adults evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci  2001; 56 : M146–57.11253156
9. Mitnitski  AB, Mogilner  AJ, Rockwood  K. Accumulation of deficits as a proxy measure of aging. Sci World J  2001; 1 : 323–36.
10. Dent  E, Kowal  P, Hoogendijk  EO. Frailty measurement in research and clinical practice: a review. Eur J Int Med  2016; 31 : 3–10.
11. Cesari  M, Gambassi  G, Abellan van Kan  G  et al.  The frailty phenotype and the frailty index: different instruments for different purposes. Age Ageing  2014; 43 : 10–2.24132852
12. Fried  LP, Ferrucci  L, Darer  J  et al.  Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty, and comorbidity: implications for improved targeting and care. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci  2004; 59 : 255–63.15031310
13. Fried  LP, Xue  QL, Cappola  AR  et al.  Nonlinear multisystem physiological dysregulation associated with frailty in older women: implications for etiology and treatment. J Gerontol A  2009; 64 : 1049–57.
14. Fried  LP, Cohen  AA, Xue  QL  et al.  The physical frailty syndrome as a transition from homeostatic symphony to cacophony. Nat Aging  2021; 1 : 36–46.34476409
15. Rockwood  K, Song  X, MacKnight  C  et al.  A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ  2005; 173 : 489–95.16129869
16. Rockwood  K, Mitnitski  A. Frailty in relation to the accumulation of deficits. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci  2007; 62 : 722–7.17634318
17. Howlett  SE, Rutenberg  AD, Rockwood  K. The degree of frailty as a translational measure of health in aging. Nat Aging  2021; 1 : 651–65.37117769
18. Rockwood  K, Andrew  M, Mitnitski  A. A comparison of two approaches to measuring frailty in elderly people. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci  2007; 62 : 738–43.17634321
19. Campbell  AJ, Buchner  DM. Unstable disability and the fluctuations of frailty. Age Ageing  1997; 26 : 315–8.9271296
20. Verbrugge  LM, Reoma  JM, Gruber-Baldini  AL. Short-term dynamics of disability and well-being. J Health Soc Behav  1994; 35 : 97–117.8064125
21. Gill  T, Hardy  SE, Williams  CS. Underestimation of disability in community-living older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc  2002; 50 : 1492–7.12383145
22. Gill  TM, Allore  HG, Hardy  SE  et al.  The dynamic nature of mobility disability in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc  2006; 54 : 248–54.16460375
23. Boyd  CM, Ricks  M, Fried  LP  et al.  Functional decline and recovery of activities of daily living among hospitalized, disabled older women: the Women’s health and aging study I. J Am Geriatr Soc  2009; 57 : 1757–66.19694869
24. Nesselroade  JR . The warp and the woof of the developmental fabric. In: Downs RM, Liben LS,Palermo DS (eds.), Visions of Aesthetics, the Environment & Development: The Legacy of Joachim F. Wohlwill. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1991; 213–40.
25. Sliwinski  MJ . Measurement-burst designs for social health research. Soc Personal Psychol Compass  2008; 2 : 245–61.
26. Katz  S, Ford  AB, Moskowitz  RW  et al.  Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA  1963; 185 : 914–9.14044222
27. Lawton  MP, Brody  EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist  1969; 9 : 179–86.5349366
28. Nagi  SZ . An epidemiology of disability among adults in the United States. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc  1976; 54 : 439–67.137366
29. LaPlante  MP . The classic measure of disability in activities of daily living is biased by age but an expanded IADL/ADL measure is not. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci  2010; 65B : 720–32.
30. Buz  J, Cortés-Rodríguez  M. Measurement of the severity of disability in community-dwelling adults and older adults: interval-level measures for accurate comparisons in large survey data sets. BMJ Open  2016; 6 : e011842.
31. Theou  O, Cann  L, Blodgett  J  et al.  Modifications to the frailty phenotype criteria: systematic review of the current literature and investigation of 262 frailty phenotypes in the survey of health, ageing, and retirement in Europe. Ageing Res Rev  2015; 21 : 78–94.25846451
32. Searle  SD, Mitnitski  A, Gahbauer  EA  et al.  A standard procedure for creating a frailty index. BMC Geriatr  2008; 8 : 24.18826625
33. Theou  O, Haviva  C, Wallace  L  et al.  How to construct a frailty index from an existing dataset in 10 steps. Age Ageing  2023; 52 : afad221.38124255
34. Verbrugge  LM, Jette  AM. The disablement process. Soc Sci Med  1994; 38 : 1–14.8146699
35. Gill  T . Disentangling the disabling process: insights from the precipitating events project. Gerontologist  2014; 54 : 533–49.25035454
36. Stolz  E, Gill  TM, Mayerl  H  et al.  Short-term disability fluctuations in late life. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci  2019; 74 : e135–40.31298701
37. Hartley  P, Romero-Ortuno  R, Wellwood  I  et al.  Changes in muscle strength and physical function in older patients during and after hospitalisation: a prospective repeated-measures cohort study. Age Ageing  2021; 50 : 153–60.32902637
38. Takayanagi  N, Sudo  M, Yamashiro  Y  et al.  Predictivity of daily gait speed using tri-axial accelerometers for two-year incident disability among Japanese older adults. Sci Rep  2022; 12 : 10067.35710722
39. Gill  TM, Han  L, Gahbauer  EA  et al.  Cohort profile: the precipitating events project (PEP study). J Nutr Health Aging  2020; 24 : 438–44.32242212
40. Hardy  S, Dubin  J, Holford  T  et al.  Transitions between states of disability and independence among older persons. Am J Epidemiol  2005; 161 : 575–84.15746474
41. Gill  TM, Guo  Z, Allore  HG. Subtypes of disability among older persons over the course of nearly eight years. J Am Geriatr Soc  2008; 56 : 436–43.18194225
