Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10356/179867
Title: Current frailty knowledge, awareness, and practices among physicians following the 2022 European consensus document on Frailty in Cardiology
Authors: Wong, Jie Jun
Wang, Laureen Yi-Ting
Hasegawa, Koji
Ho, Kay Woon
Huang, Zijuan
Teo, Louis L. Y.
Tan, Jack Wei Chieh
Kasahara, Kazuyuki
Tan, Ru-San
Ge, Junbo
Koh, Angela S.
Keywords: Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
Issue Date: 2024
Source: Wong, J. J., Wang, L. Y., Hasegawa, K., Ho, K. W., Huang, Z., Teo, L. L. Y., Tan, J. W. C., Kasahara, K., Tan, R., Ge, J. & Koh, A. S. (2024). Current frailty knowledge, awareness, and practices among physicians following the 2022 European consensus document on Frailty in Cardiology. European Heart Journal Open, 4(2), oeae025-. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeae025
Journal: European Heart Journal Open 
Abstract: Aims: Aging-related cardiovascular disease and frailty burdens are anticipated to rise with global aging. In response to directions from major cardiovascular societies, we investigated frailty knowledge, awareness, and practices among cardiologists as key stakeholders in this emerging paradigm a year after the European Frailty in Cardiology consensus document was published. Methods and results: We launched a prospective multinational web-based survey via social networks to broad cardiology communities representing multiple World Health Organization regions, including Western Pacific and Southeast Asia regions. Overall, 578 respondents [38.2% female; ages 35–49 years (55.2%) and 50–64 years (34.4%)] across subspecialties, including interventionists (43.3%), general cardiologists (30.6%), and heart failure specialists (HFSs) (10.9%), were surveyed. Nearly half had read the consensus document (38.9%). Non-interventionists had better perceived knowledge of frailty assessment instruments (fully or vaguely aware, 57.2% vs. 45%, adj. P = 0.0002), exercise programmes (well aware, 12.9% vs. 6.0%, adj. P = 0.001), and engaged more in multidisciplinary team care (frequently or occasionally, 52.6% vs. 41%, adj. P = 0.002) than interventionists. Heart failure specialists more often addressed pre-procedural frailty (frequently or occasionally, 43.5% vs. 28.2%, P = 0.004) and polypharmacy (frequently or occasionally, 85.5% vs. 71%, adj. P = 0.014) and had consistently better composite knowledge (39.3% vs. 21.6%, adj. P = 0.001) and practice responses (21% vs. 11.1%, adj. P = 0.018) than nonHFSs. Respondents with better knowledge responses also had better frailty practices (40.3% vs. 3.6%, adj. P < 0.001). Conclusion: Distinct response differences suggest that future strategies strengthening frailty principles should address practices peculiar to subspecialties, such as pre-procedural frailty strategies for interventionists and rehabilitation interventions for HFSs.
URI: https://hdl.handle.net/10356/179867
ISSN: 2752-4191
DOI: 10.1093/ehjopen/oeae025
Schools: Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine (LKCMedicine) 
Rights: © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. 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.
Fulltext Permission: open
Fulltext Availability: With Fulltext
Appears in Collections:LKCMedicine Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
oeae025.pdf863.38 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open

Page view(s)

71
Updated on Mar 11, 2025

Download(s)

15
Updated on Mar 11, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Plumx

Items in DR-NTU are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.