Search

Abstract Background As the world’s population ages, there is a growing concern with frailty, marked by reduced strength and greater vulnerability to stress. Overcoming obstacles like reluctance towards screening methods in this process is crucial for identifying and addressing frailty at an early stage. Understanding older people’s perspectives can help adapt screening procedures in primary healthcare settings. Methods A citizens’ jury, comprising 14 purposively selected members reflecting community diversity, was conducted in South Australia to explore older adults’ opinions on how and when frailty screenings occur within primary care settings. Participants engaged in discussions and deliberations informed by expert testimonies and evidence-based resources. This deliberative inclusive research method supported jurors to understand the evidence and contribute informed insights into health policy. Results The jury systematically addressed several key concerns, including the major issues surrounding frailty screening, its benefits and potential harms, and measures to prevent screening bias and misdiagnosis. The outcome was 17 recommendations within the themes of screening age and frequency, consent, access and setting, communication and public awareness, and resources and cost. Conclusions The study highlights the value of including older adults in the decision-making about health interventions aimed at them. The method proved effective in capturing a spectrum of community values and preferences, offering actionable recommendations for refining health screening policies to better address the needs and expectations of older adults.

Introduction Rapid population ageing is a demographic trend being experienced and documented worldwide. While increased health screening and assessment may help mitigate the burden of illness in older people, issues such as misdiagnosis may affect access to interventions. This study aims to elicit the values and preferences of evidence-informed older people living in the community on early screening for common health conditions (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, dementia and frailty). The study will proceed in three Phases: (1) generating recommendations of older people through a series of Citizens’ Juries; (2) obtaining feedback from a diverse range of stakeholder groups on the jury findings; and (3) co-designing a set of Knowledge Translation resources to facilitate implementation into research, policy and practice. Conditions were chosen to reflect common health conditions characterised by increasing prevalence with age, but which have been underexamined through a Citizens’ Jury methodology.Methods and analysis This study will be conducted in three Phases—(1) Citizens’ Juries, (2) Policy Roundtables and (3) Production of Knowledge Translation resources. First, older people aged 50+ (n=80), including those from traditionally hard-to-reach and diverse groups, will be purposively recruited to four Citizen Juries. Second, representatives from a range of key stakeholder groups, including consumers and carers, health and aged care policymakers, general practitioners, practice nurses, geriatricians, allied health practitioners, pharmaceutical companies, private health insurers and community and aged care providers (n=40) will be purposively recruited for two Policy Roundtables. Finally, two researchers and six purposively recruited consumers will co-design Knowledge Translation resources. Thematic analysis will be performed on documentation and transcripts.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been obtained through the Torrens University Human Research Ethics Committee. Participants will give written informed consent. Findings will be disseminated through development of a policy brief and lay summary, peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and seminars.