Skip to main content

Table 3 Participant preferences for frailty screening instruments by instrument and preference order (n = 39)

From: Practitioner perceptions of the feasibility of common frailty screening instruments within general practice settings: a mixed methods study

Instrument

First preference

Second preference

Third preference

Fourth preference

Fifth preference

Sixth preference

Seventh preference

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

EFS

15

(38.5)

12

(30.8)

3

(7.7)

5

(12.8)

1

(2.6)

2

(5.1)

1

(2.6)

KC

10

(25.6)

7

(17.9)

9

(23.1)

5

(12.8)

3

(7.7)

4

(10.3)

1

(2.6)

GFI

4

(10.3)

9

(23.1)

10

(25.6)

5

(12.8)

8

(20.5)

1

(2.6)

2

(5.1)

TUG

4

(10.3)

0

(0.0)

7

(17.9)

6

(15.4)

6

(15.4)

13

(33.3)

3

(7.7)

P7

3

(7.7)

3

(7.7)

4

(10.3)

4

(10.3)

7

(17.9)

5

(12.8)

12

(30.8)

FQ

3

(7.7)

8

(20.5)

5

(12.8)

9

(23.1)

7

(17.9)

4

(10.3)

4

(10.3)

GST

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

1

(2.6)

5

(12.8)

7

(17.9)

10

(25.6)

16

(41.0)

TOTAL

39

(100.0)

39

(100.0)

39

(100.0)

39

(100.0)

39

(100.0)

39

(100.0)

39

(100.0)

  1. Abbreviations: P7 PRISMA-7, FQ Frail Questionnaire, GST Gait Speed Test, GFI Groningen Frailty Indicator, EFS Edmonton Frail Scale, KC Kihon Checklist, TUG Timed Up and Go
  2. NB: Tables 3 and 4 exclude 4 GPs missing the KC from their rankings