Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Objective assessment of the association between frailty and sedentary behavior in older adults: a cross-sectional study

European Review of Aging and Physical Activity volume 20, Article number: 14 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Given the inconsistent findings of the association between frailty and sedentary behavior in older adults, this cross-sectional study investigated the aforementioned association using four different frailty criteria and two sedentary behavior indices in older adults.

Methods

Data from older adults (age ≥ 65 y) who participated in health examinations or attended outpatient integrated clinics at a medical center in Taipei, Taiwan, were collected. Frailty was measured using the modified Fried Frailty Phenotype (mFFP), Clinical Frailty Scale in Chinese Translation (CFS-C), Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) index, and Clinical Frailty-Deficit Count (CF-DC) index; sedentary behavior was assessed with a waist-worn accelerometer. Adjusted linear regression ascertained the association between frailty and both sedentary behavior outcomes.

Results

Among the 214 participants (mean age 80.82 ± 7.14 y), 116 were women. The average total sedentary time and number of sedentary bouts were 609.74 ± 79.29 min and 5.51 ± 2.09 times per day, respectively. Frail participants had a longer total sedentary time (odds ratio [OR]: 30.13, P = .01 and 39.43, P < .001) and more sedentary bouts (OR: 3.50 and 5.86, both P < .001) on mFFP and CFS-C assessments, respectively. The SOF index revealed more sedentary bouts among frail than in robust participants (OR: 2.06, P = .009), without a significant difference in the total sedentary time. Frail participants defined by the CF-DC index were more likely to have frequent sedentary bouts (OR: 2.03, P = .016), but did not have a longer total sedentary time.

Conclusions

Regardless of the frailty criteria adopted, frailty was positively associated with the number of sedentary bouts per day in older adults. A significant correlation between frailty and total sedentary time was detected only with mFFP and CFS-C indices. Further research may target decreasing the sedentary bouts in older adults as a strategy to improve frailty.

Background

Frailty, which is characterized as a clinical state wherein individuals are more vulnerable to stressor exposure [1], is a common health issue among older adults. However, there is a lack of consensus with regard to the definition of frailty worldwide. Among the several operational criteria for assessing frailty risk, two theories are most widely accepted: one theory involves the definition of frailty based on a phenotypic model, such as the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) and the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) index, that mainly focuses on the physical condition [2, 3]; another theory defines frailty on the basis of a deficit-accumulation model, such as the Frailty Index (FI) and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), which include multiple domains [4, 5]. Depending on the diagnostic criteria adopted, the prevalence of frailty varies between 4.0% and 59.1% in community-dwelling older adults [6]. In Taiwan, the prevalence of frailty in the older population ranges from 4.9% to 42%, with varied associations that depend on the place of residence and measurement criteria [7,8,9]. Frailty is correlated with negative health outcomes, such as physical limitations, falls, fractures, hospitalization, and death [10]. The increasing demand from the frail older population for healthcare services increasingly constitutes a significant socioeconomic burden [11], and this issue deserves attention.

Sedentary behavior has emerged as a new risk factor for health [12] and is defined as any waking activity that requires energy expenditure of less than or equal to 1.5 basal metabolic equivalents with a sitting or reclining posture, such as television viewing, reading, and computer use [13]. Sedentary behavior is measured using self-reported questionnaires or accelerometers [14], which are objective assessment tools that can provide information on the wearer’s detailed patterns of daily physical activity. Several studies have demonstrated that older people tend to spend most of their time awake performing sedentary activities [15]. In Taiwanese older adults, the self-reported and objectively measured total sedentary time per day was 4.72 [16] and 10.1 h [17] respectively, which was similar to the global average (range, 5.3–9.4 h) [15]. Furthermore, strong evidence exists on the relationship between sedentary behavior and all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic syndrome [12].

Investigations of the association between frailty and sedentary behavior in older adults are increasingly being conducted [18]. Nevertheless, the correlation of frailty with sedentary behavior in previous studies has been inconsistent [18, 19]. Most analyses found that greater sedentary behavior time was correlated with higher frailty [20,21,22,23,24,25,26] when FFP was applied mainly, but two still showed no significant association between sedentary behavior and frailty [27, 28]. The relationship between frailty and sedentary bouts was also investigated in three studies, two of which indicated that a higher number of sedentary bouts was associated with higher frailty [26, 29], while another study found that more time in sedentary bouts was non-significantly associated with frailty [27]. These discrepancies might result from participants' characteristics, adjusted variables, different measurements of sedentary behavior, and the heterogeneity of frailty assessments. The conclusion regarding the correlation between sedentary behavior and frailty may be more comprehensive if the frailty status assessed by instruments other than FFP were also available. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the relationship between frailty status, as ascertained according to different criteria, and objectively measured sedentary behavior in older adults.

Methods

Study design and setting

This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Geriatrics and Gerontology of a medical center in Taipei, Taiwan. Community-dwelling older adults who were previously enrolled in studies of health examinations (Study 1) or integrated outpatient clinics (Study 2) between September 17, 2020, and October 1, 2021, were recruited for this study to add an accelerometer component to the data obtained. The study protocol was approved by the appropriate research ethics committee and complied with all the ethical rules stated in the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study was retrospectively registered on clinical trial platforms (201903110RIND, 202008046RINC).

Participants

Older adults aged 65 y or more with basic literacy skills were eligible for study participation. The inclusion criteria of Study 1 were (1) participation in an annual geriatric health examination and (2) ability to walk independently or with a walker for > 10 m. For Study 2, the inclusion criteria were an outpatient visit to an integrated geriatric clinic by patients having at least one of the following conditions: (1) fall within 1 y, (2) functional decline within 1 y, (3) body weight loss of 5% in 1 month or 10% in 6 months, (4) polypharmacy (≥ 5 medications), (5) urinary incontinence, or (6) osteoporosis. The exclusion criteria were: (1) severe hearing or visual impairment, (2) severe cognitive impairment that could lead to difficulty in following instructions, and (3) a CFS score ≥ 8. Initially, 273 field data points were collected during the study period. We further excluded duplicate data from the same participant (n = 2), incomplete accelerometer data (n = 35), incomplete baseline assessment data (n = 20), and baseline assessment data that were obtained more than 6 months before the accelerometer measurement (n = 2). Thus, data from 214 participants were included in the analysis (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of participant recruitment and the data selection process. a Frailty Risk Assessment and Management in Community-dwelling Elderly. b Prognostic Implications of Common Geriatric Syndromes on Elderly Outpatients and Hospitalized Patients

Full size image

Measurement of frailty

We adopted the modified Fried Frailty Phenotype (mFFP) with five components: weight loss (> 3 kg in the last year) [30], exhaustion (self-reported fatigue for at least 3 days during the last week) [31], weakness (handgrip strength < 28 kg in men or < 18 kg in women) [32], slowness (6-m walking speed < 1 m/s) [32], and low physical activity (not being physically active beyond walking around during activities of daily living) [33]. Participants without any, one or two, and three or more mFFP components were classified as robust, pre-frail, and frail, respectively.

The CFS-C [34], the Chinese translated version of the CFS, is a 9-point scale that assesses specific domains, including function, cognition, and comorbidity, to generate a frailty score that ranges from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill). The CFS-C demonstrated a significant correlation with other commonly used frailty criteria (Kendall’s tau, 0.46–0.63). We considered CFS-C scores of 1 to 3 as robust, 4 as pre-frail, and ≥ 5 as frail in this study.

The SOF index comprises the following three criteria: (1) weight loss of more than 3 kg in the past 1 year; (2) difficulty rising from a chair five times without using one’s arms (> 15 s); and (3) self-reported fatigue for at least 3 days during the last week. Pre-frailty was defined as the presence of one component and frailty as ≥ 2 positive criteria. Participants who did not fulfill any of the SOF criteria were considered robust.

The Clinical Frailty-Deficit Count (CF-DC) index [35], which was modified from the FI proposed by Rockwood, comprises 79 risk factors across five domains: lifestyle-related factors (8 items); health status and healthcare-related factors (29 items); nutrition and sarcopenia-related factors (10 items); cognition, mood, and spirituality-related factors (14 items); and functional status-related factors (18 items) (Table 1). Among these factors, 68 variables were ascertained using a self-reported questionnaire, whereas 11 variables comprised measurements of vital signs, oxygen saturation, body composition, hand grip strength, walking speed, Timed Up and Go Test, and five sit-to-stand tests, which were collected using the BabyBot vital data recording system (Netown Corporation, Taipei, Taiwan). The score was calculated by dividing the sum of the deficits, where “with” or “without” the problem described were scored as 1 and 0, respectively, by the total number of parameters that were examined. The final score ranged from 0 to 1. We set 0.25 as the cutoff point for identifying frailty; a score of 0.1–0.25 indicated pre-frailty, whereas a score < 0.1 indicated robustness [35]. Regardless of the criteria adopted, pre-frail or frail participants were categorized as the frail group, whereas the remainder were categorized as the robust group.

Table 1 List of variables in the Clinical Frailty-Deficit Count (CF-DC) index
Full size table

Measurement of sedentary behavior

The waist-worn accelerometer, ActiGraph wGT3X + (ActiGraph LLC, Pensacola, FL, USA), was used to assess sedentary behaviors. Its sensors detected and measured accelerations caused by body movement in different planes continuously. The collected data from the accelerometer was then downloaded for further processing and analysis. The reliability and validity of accelerometers for measuring sedentary behavior in older adults has been previously reported [36]. We distributed one accelerometer to each participant and asked them to wear the devices for 7 consecutive days, except when bathing, showering, or swimming. During the wearing period, participants were asked to record the time at which they went to bed and got out of bed, and to note any instance of device removal for reasons other than the abovementioned activities. A minimum of 10 h of wearing time per day and at least 5 days of valid data were required for inclusion in the analyses [36]. A threshold of < 100 counts per minute was applied to denote sedentary time [36], whereas ≥ 30 min of consequent sedentary time was defined as one sedentary bout [37]. The sum of the total duration of sedentary bouts per day was measured and defined as the total sedentary time [37]. The data were analyzed using ActiLife Software (v6.13.3 Actigraph Inc., Pensacola, FL).

Statistical analyses

For the description of baseline characteristics, continuous variables are reported as mean ± standard deviation, and categorical variables as numbers and percentages. Baseline characteristics were compared using analysis of variance to examine the differences in accelerometer measures (total number and total time of sedentary bouts per day). Missing data comprised less than 5% of the total data, and the expectation–maximization algorithm was used to impute incomplete data. Variables with P < 0.1 in the bivariate analysis were entered into the stepwise linear regression model to determine the independent effects of the total sedentary time and the number of sedentary bouts per day. The main independent variables of interest were the four frailty indicators that were always included in the models, irrespective of statistical significance at the bivariate level. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 23.0 (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, IL, USA), and significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

The baseline characteristics of the study population are summarized in Table 2. Among the 214 older participants, 54.2% (n = 116) were women, and the mean age was 80.82 ± 7.14 y. The average total sedentary time and number of sedentary bouts were 609.74 ± 79.29 min and 5.51 ± 2.09 times per day, respectively. The prevalence of frailty in older adults as determined by the mFFP, CFS-C, SOF, and CF-DC indices were 67.8%, 28.0%, 50.0%, and 63.6%, respectively.

Table 2 Baseline characteristics of the participants
Full size table

The associations between baseline characteristics and sedentary behavior are presented in Table 3. The significant factors included higher age, smoking, polypharmacy (≥ 8 drugs), and frailty defined by the mFFP and CFS-C for the total sedentary time per day. Furthermore, with regard to the number of sedentary bouts per day, we found that a higher age, male sex, smoking, visits to more than four different specialists, polypharmacy (≥ 8 drugs), and frailty (as defined by all four criteria) were significant factors.

Table 3 Association between baseline participant characteristics and accelerometer-measured sedentary behaviors
Full size table

Table 4 shows the associations between the four different indices and two different sedentary behavior outcomes. Linear regression analyses were performed after adjusting for potential confounding variables. When the mFFP definition of frailty was adopted, participants with frailty tended to have a longer total sedentary time (odds ratio [OR] = 30.13, P = 0.01) and more frequent sedentary bouts per day (OR = 3.50, P < 0.001). Similar results were found when using the CFS-C for frailty diagnosis: the frail older adults had a significantly higher total sedentary time (OR = 39.43, P < 0.001) and more frequent sedentary bouts per day (OR = 5.86, P < 0.001). As per the SOF index for frailty, a higher odds of increased sedentary bouts was reported for participants in the frail group than those in the robust group (OR = 2.06, P = 0.009), but not for the total sedentary time per day. Participants with frailty defined by the CF-DC index were more likely to have more frequent sedentary bouts (OR = 2.03, P = 0.016); however, this did not apply to the total sedentary time.

Table 4 Adjusted model of the association between four differently frailty indices and sedentary behaviors
Full size table

As shown in Table 4, when frailty was defined by the mFFP, a higher age was positively correlated with both the daily total sedentary time (OR = 19.31, P = 0.009) and sedentary bouts (OR = 1.88, P < 0.001); male sex and polypharmacy (≥ 8 drugs) were only associated with the number of sedentary bouts (OR = 1.90, P = 0.014 and OR = 3.29, P < 0.001, respectively). With the CFS-C, male sex and polypharmacy (≥ 8 drugs) were also positively associated with the number of sedentary bouts (OR = 2.08, P = 0.005 and OR = 2.27, P = 0.007, respectively). When adopting the SOF index, a higher risk of longer sedentary time was found in participants who were older (OR = 6.19, P = 0.018) and in smokers (OR = 4.37, P = 0.041). With regard to daily sedentary bouts, a positive correlation was observed with the male sex (OR = 1.80, P = 0.027), higher age (OR = 1.79, P = 0.001), and polypharmacy (OR = 3.95, P < 0.001). When using the CF-DC, the significant relationship observed between the variables and the two sedentary behaviors was similar to that observed with the SOF index.

Discussion

The main finding of this study was that, regardless of the frailty index used, a positive association with the frequency of sedentary bouts was detected in community-dwelling older adults. However, frailty significantly correlated with the daily total sedentary time only when the mFFP and CFS-C scales were used.

According to two analyses defined by the Frailty Trait Scale and 46-item FI, frailty is associated with a higher number of sedentary bouts [26, 29]. The results of our study seem consistent with previous findings. Moreover, our study showed that all four frailty indicators were associated with sedentary bouts. One possible mechanism that explains this association is that frail individuals tend to have poor endurance and easy fatigability and may need to take more breaks during physical activity, which lead to more sedentary bouts per day.

Similar to the results of most studies that used the FFP, our results revealed a positive correlation between frailty and total sedentary time [19, 38,39,40]. Only one study that used FFP showed no significant correlation for the evaluated variables [28]. Studies that used the FI to assess frailty demonstrated a strong association between frailty and longer sedentary time [20, 22], whereas our study did not detect this association. No study in the existing literature has adopted the CFS-C scale or SOF index to investigate the relationship between frailty and sedentary behavior. Further studies are needed to explore the inconsistent findings between different frailty assessments and the total sedentary time.

In this study, the total time spent in sedentary behavior among older adults was 10.2 h per day. A systematic review that included studies from 10 countries reported that older adults had an average of 9.4 h per day of objectively measured sedentary behavior [15]. The longer sedentary time in our study could be explained by the higher mean age (80.8 y) of the participants compared with that observed in the review (72.2 y).

The characteristics of sedentary older people have been previously described, and include higher age [41, 42], abnormal body mass index [42,43,44,45], and smoking [41, 44]. In our study, we found a positive relationship between a higher age and sedentary behavior outcomes under three different definitions of frailty (mFFP, SOF Index, and CF-DC Index). Participants who smoked were inclined to have a longer total sedentary time in a day, based on the SOF and CF-DC indices. Studies have demonstrated that smoking is strongly correlated with physical inactivity, and current smokers tend to exercise less than non-smokers [46].

Among the adjusted models, only male sex and polypharmacy remained significantly associated with an increased frequency of sedentary bouts per day after adjusting for the four different criteria for frailty. Nevertheless, the correlations between sex, polypharmacy, and sedentary behavior are conflicting. Several studies have indicated that sedentary behavior is more prevalent in men [41, 44, 47, 48], whereas others have suggested that women are more likely to be physically inactive [43, 45]. Satariano et al. considered that different family priorities and responsibilities may explain why men tend to be more sedentary than women. Women are inclined to spend more time on caregiving then men, resulting in less sedentary time [49]. One study showed that the number of medications taken was positively associated with sedentary behavior [50], and another study found no significant association between polypharmacy (≥ 5 drugs) and sedentary behavior [51].

To our knowledge, this is the first study to use four commonly used criteria for frailty in analyses of the association of frailty with sedentary behavior. However, this study had some limitations. First, the causal relationship between frailty and sedentary behavior could not be established because of the cross-sectional study design. Second, the participants were mostly older people who were living in urban areas (Taipei), and data from rural areas were not included. Therefore, the results do not represent the overall conditions of the Taiwanese population. Third, the validity and reliability of the CF-DC index have only been verified in domestic research. Fourth, there were differences in the definitions of sedentary time. To achieve a meaningful quantum of sedentary time, we set a threshold of 30 min as the total sedentary time, which was not specifically regulated in other studies. Fifth, the classification of frailty differed from that used in other research, which mostly classified the frailty status into three stages: robust, pre-frail, and frail. In contrast, we included pre-frail and frail participants in the frail group.

Conclusions

In conclusion, frailty was positively associated with the number of sedentary bouts per day in older adults for all four of the frailty indices that were used for the assessment. However, when the total sedentary time was used as an outcome, a significant association was found only with the use of the mFFP and CFS-C scales. Further research may target decreasing the sedentary bouts in older adults as a strategy to improve frailty.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CFS-C:

Clinical Frailty Scale in Chinese Translation

CF-DC:

Clinical Frailty-Deficit Count

CFS:

Clinical Frailty Scale

FFP:

Fried Frailty Phenotype

FI:

Frailty index

mFFP:

Modified Fried Frailty Phenotype

OR:

Odds ratio

SOF:

Study of Osteoporotic Fractures

References

  1. Morley JE, Vellas B, van Kan GA, Anker SD, Bauer JM, Bernabei R, et al. Frailty consensus: a call to action. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14:392–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56:M146–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ensrud KE, Ewing SK, Cawthon PM, Fink HA, Taylor BC, Cauley JA, et al. A comparison of frailty indexes for the prediction of falls, disability, fractures, and mortality in older men. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57:492–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Mitnitski AB, Song X, Rockwood K. The estimation of relative fitness and frailty in community-dwelling older adults using self-report data. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004;59:M627–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Church S, Rogers E, Rockwood K, Theou O. A scoping review of the clinical frailty scale. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20:393.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Collard RM, Boter H, Schoevers RA, Oude Voshaar RC. Prevalence of frailty in community-dwelling older persons: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60:1487–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wu W, Hu SC. Prevalence of frailty in Taiwanese elderly: A comparison of Taiwan urban and rural areas. Innov Aging. 2017;1:385.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen CY, Wu SC, Chen LJ, Lue BH. The prevalence of subjective frailty and factors associated with frailty in Taiwan. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2010;50(Suppl 1):S43–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen LJ, Chen CY, Lue BH, Tseng MY, Wu SC. Prevalence and associated factors of frailty among elderly people in Taiwan. Int J Gerontol. 2014;8:114–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vermeiren S, Vella-Azzopardi R, Beckwée D, Habbig AK, Scafoglieri A, Jansen B, et al. Frailty and the prediction of negative health outcomes: a meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016;17:1163.e1–e17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chi J, Chen F, Zhang J, Niu X, Tao H, Ruan H, et al. Impacts of frailty on health care costs among community-dwelling older adults: A meta-analysis of cohort studies. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2021;94:104344.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. de Rezende LF, Rodrigues Lopes M, Rey-López JP, Matsudo VK, Luiz OC. Sedentary behavior and health outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews. PLoS One. 2014;9:e105620.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Pate RR, O’Neill JR, Lobelo F. The evolving definition of “sedentary.” Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2008;36:173–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Atkin AJ, Gorely T, Clemes SA, Yates T, Edwardson C, Brage S, et al. Methods of measurement in epidemiology: sedentary behaviour. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:1460–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Harvey JA, Chastin SF, Skelton DA. How sedentary are older people? a systematic review of the amount of sedentary behavior. J Aging Phys Act. 2015;23:471–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hsueh MC, Liao Y, Chang SH. Are total and domain-specific sedentary time associated with overweight in older Taiwanese adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12:12697–705.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Chang SH, Rutherford R, Hsueh MC, Yu YC, Park JH, Wang S, et al. Neighborhood environment and objectively measured sedentary behavior among older adults: a cross-sectional study. Front Public Health. 2020;8:552198.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kehler DS, Hay JL, Stammers AN, Hamm NC, Kimber DE, Schultz ASH, et al. A systematic review of the association between sedentary behaviors with frailty. Exp Gerontol. 2018;114:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tolley APL, Ramsey KA, Rojer AGM, Reijnierse EM, Maier AB. Objectively measured physical activity is associated with frailty in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;137:218–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Blodgett J, Theou O, Kirkland S, Andreou P, Rockwood K. The association between sedentary behaviour, moderate-vigorous physical activity and frailty in NHANES cohorts. Maturitas. 2015;80:187–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nagai K, Tamaki K, Kusunoki H, Wada Y, Tsuji S, Ito M, et al. Isotemporal substitution of sedentary time with physical activity and its associations with frailty status. Clin Interv Aging. 2018;13:1831–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Mañas A, Pozo-Cruz BD, Rodríguez-Gómez I, Losa-Reyna J, Rodríguez-Mañas L, García-García FJ, et al. Can physical activity offset the detrimental consequences of sedentary time on frailty? a moderation analysis in 749 older adults measured with accelerometers. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019;20:634–8.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Higueras-Fresnillo S, de la Cámara M, Cabanas-Sánchez V, Martínez-Gómez D. Associations of Frailty and Physical Function with a Daily Activities Measured by a Pattern-Recognition Activity Monitor: An Isotemporal Substitution Analysis in the IMPACT65+ Study. J Nutr Health Aging. 2020;24:55–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Razjouyan J, Naik AD, Horstman MJ, Kunik ME, Amirmazaheri M, Zhou H, et al. Wearable sensors and the assessment of frailty among vulnerable older adults: an observational cohort study. Sensors (Basel). 2018;18:1336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. da Silva Coqueiro R, de Queiroz BM, Oliveira DS, das Merces MC, Oliveira Carneiro JA, Pereira R, et al. Cross-sectional relationships between sedentary behavior and frailty in older adults. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2017;57:825–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Del Pozo-Cruz B, Mañas A, Martín-García M, Marín-Puyalto J, García-García FJ, Rodriguez-Mañas L, et al. Frailty is associated with objectively assessed sedentary behaviour patterns in older adults: Evidence from the Toledo Study for Healthy Aging (TSHA). PLoS One. 2017;12:e0183911.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen S, Chen T, Kishimoto H, Yatsugi H, Kumagai S. Associations of objectively measured patterns of sedentary behavior and physical activity with frailty status screened by the frail scale in Japanese community-dwelling older adults. J Sports Sci Med. 2020;19:166–74.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Castaneda-Gameros D, Redwood S, Thompson JL. Physical activity, sedentary time, and frailty in older migrant women from ethnically diverse backgrounds: a mixed-methods study. J Aging Phys Act. 2018;26:194–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kehler DS, Clara I, Hiebert B, Stammers AN, Hay JL, Schultz A, et al. The association between bouts of moderate to vigorous physical activity and patterns of sedentary behavior with frailty. Exp Gerontol. 2018;104:28–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tsai JS, Wu CH, Chen SC, Huang KC, Chen CY, Chang CI, et al. Plasma adiponectin levels correlate positively with an increasing number of components of frailty in male elders. PLoS One. 2013;8:e56250.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Orme JG, Reis J, Herz EJ. Factorial and discriminant validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) scale. J Clin Psychol. 1986;42:28–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chen LK, Woo J, Assantachai P, Auyeung TW, Chou MY, Iijima K, et al. Asian working group for sarcopenia: 2019 consensus update on sarcopenia diagnosis and treatment. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21:300–7.e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Topolski TD, LoGerfo J, Patrick DL, Williams B, Walwick J, Patrick MB. The Rapid Assessment of Physical Activity (RAPA) among older adults. Prev Chronic Dis. 2006;3:A118.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Chou YC, Tsou HH, Chan DD, Wen CJ, Lu FP, Lin KP, et al. Validation of clinical frailty scale in Chinese translation. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22:604.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Li HY, Mao HF, Chen YM, Chen CY. Comparison of four frailty Indices with multiple aging functional risks in healthy elderly (content in Chinese). Formos J Med. 2020;24:371–82.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Heesch KC, Hill RL, Aguilar-Farias N, van Uffelen JGZ, Pavey T. Validity of objective methods for measuring sedentary behaviour in older adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15:119.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Honda T, Chen S, Yonemoto K, Kishimoto H, Chen T, Narazaki K, et al. Sedentary bout durations and metabolic syndrome among working adults: a prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:888.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Li T, Pan Y, He Q, Du L, Chen K, Ren X, et al. Associations between sedentary behaviour, physical activity and frailty in older Chinese women: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Nurs. 2023;32:825–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Park KN, Kim SH. Consumer wearable device-based measures of physical activity and energy expenditure in community-dwelling older adults with different levels of frailty: a STROBE compliant study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022;101:e31863.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kikuchi H, Inoue S, Amagasa S, Fukushima N, Machida M, Murayama H, et al. Associations of older adults’ physical activity and bout-specific sedentary time with frailty status: Compositional analyses from the NEIGE study. Exp Gerontol. 2021;143:111149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gennuso KP, Gangnon RE, Matthews CE, Thraen-Borowski KM, Colbert LH. Sedentary behavior, physical activity, and markers of health in older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45:1493–500.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Strath SJ, Swartz AM, Cashin SE. Ambulatory physical activity profiles of older adults. J Aging Phys Act. 2009;17:46–56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Bankoski A, Harris TB, McClain JJ, Brychta RJ, Caserotti P, Chen KY, et al. Sedentary activity associated with metabolic syndrome independent of physical activity. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:497–503.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. van der Berg JD, Bosma H, Caserotti P, Eiriksdottir G, Arnardottir NY, Martin KR, et al. Midlife determinants associated with sedentary behavior in old age. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46:1359–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Kaplan MS, Huguet N, Newsom JT, McFarland BH. Characteristics of physically inactive older adults with arthritis: results of a population-based study. Prev Med. 2003;37:61–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kaczynski AT, Manske SR, Mannell RC, Grewal K. Smoking and physical activity: a systematic review. Am J Health Behav. 2008;32:93–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kehler DS, Clara I, Hiebert B, Stammers AN, Hay JL, Schultz A, et al. Sex-differences in relation to the association between patterns of physical activity and sedentary behavior with frailty. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020;87:103972.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Leung KW, Sum KR, Yang YJ. Patterns of sedentary behavior among older adults in care facilities: a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:2710.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Satariano WA, Haight TJ, Tager IB. Living arrangements and participation in leisure-time physical activities in an older population. J Aging Health. 2002;14:427–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Heseltine R, Skelton DA, Kendrick D, Morris RW, Griffin M, Haworth D, et al. “Keeping Moving”: factors associated with sedentary behaviour among older people recruited to an exercise promotion trial in general practice. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16:67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Mattle M, Meyer U, Lang W, Mantegazza N, Gagesch M, Mansky R, et al. Prevalence of physical activity and sedentary behavior patterns in generally healthy european adults aged 70 years and older-baseline results from the DO-HEALTH Clinical Trial. Front Public Health. 2022;10:810725.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to render special thanks to Yi-Chih Tsai, a research assistant from the Department of Geriatrics and Gerontology, National Taiwan University, for assistance with the data collection for this study. We would also like to express our gratitude to Dr. Chia-Ter Chao, from the Internal Medicine Department of National Taiwan University Hospital, for critical reviewing the manuscript.

Funding

The study was supported by an internal research grant from National Taiwan University Hospital Department of Geriatrics and Gerontology and a MOST109-2410-H845-037-MY2 grant. The sponsors provided an unrestricted research grant for this study. The authors designed and conducted the study, completed the analysis, and wrote the manuscript without influence from the sponsors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geriatrics and Gerontology, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7, Chungshan S. Rd, Taipei, 100225, Taiwan

    Wen-Ning Chang, Pei-Lin Tzeng, Wei-Jia Huang, Kun-Pei Lin, Chiung-Jung Wen, Yi-Chun Chou & Ding-Cheng Chan

  2. Department of Health Promotion and Health Education, National Taiwan Normal University, No 162, Section 1, Heping E. Rd, Taipei, 106209, Taiwan

    Pei-Lin Tzeng & Yu-Hung Lin

  3. National Taiwan University Hospital, Bei-Hu Branch, No. 87 Neijiang Street, Taipei, 108206, Taiwan

    Yu-Hung Lin

  4. Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7, Chungshan S. Rd, Taipei, 100225, Taiwan

    Kun-Pei Lin & Ding-Cheng Chan

  5. Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, No. 7, Chungshan S. Rd, Taipei, 100225, Taiwan

    Chiung-Jung Wen & Yi-Chun Chou

  6. Graduate Institute of Sport, Leisure and Hospitality Management, National Taiwan Normal University, No. 162, Section 1, Heping E. Rd, Taipei, 106209, Taiwan

    Yung Liao

  7. Graduate Institute of Sport Pedagogy, University of Taipei, No. 101, Sec. 2, Zhongcheng Rd, Taipei, 111036, Taiwan

    Ming-Chun Hsueh

Authors
  1. Wen-Ning Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pei-Lin Tzeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wei-Jia Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yu-Hung Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kun-Pei Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chiung-Jung Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yi-Chun Chou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yung Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ming-Chun Hsueh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ding-Cheng Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study concept and design: WNC, PLT, YL, MCH, DCC. Acquisition of data: PLT, KPL, CJW, YCC. Analysis and interpretation of data: WNC, PLT, WJH, YHL, DCC. Drafting of the manuscript: WNC, PLT, WJH, DCC. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: WNC, PLT, WJH, YHL, KPL, CJW, YCC YL, MCH, DCC. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ding-Cheng Chan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Community-dwelling older adults who were previously enrolled in studies of health examinations (Frailty Risk Assessment and Management in Community-dwelling Elderly, Research Ethic Committee No. 201802035RINB: Study 1) or integrated outpatient clinics (Prognostic Implications of Common Geriatric Syndromes on Elderly Outpatients and Hospitalized Patients, Research Ethic Committee No. 201903110RIND: Study 2) between September 17, 2020, and October 1, 2021, were recruited for this study to add an accelerometer component to the data obtained. The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (No. 202008046RINB) and complied with all the ethical rules stated in the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chang, WN., Tzeng, PL., Huang, WJ. et al. Objective assessment of the association between frailty and sedentary behavior in older adults: a cross-sectional study. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act 20, 14 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s11556-023-00324-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s11556-023-00324-5

Keywords

European Review of Aging and Physical Activity

ISSN: 1861-6909

Contact us