Frailty is a major geriatric syndrome that predicts increased vulnerability to minor stressor events and adverse outcomes such as falls, fractures, disability and death. The prevalence of frailty among individuals above the age of 65 varies widely with an overall weighted prevalence of 10.7%.

The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of prefrailty and frailty in community-dwelling older adults from the regions of Lolland-Falster, which is one of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged areas of Denmark with lower income and lower life expectancy compared with the general Danish population. Moreover, the objective was to find selected individual characteristics associated with frailty.

An observational, cross-sectional registry-based population study with data from the regions of Lolland-Falster collected between February 2016 and February 2020.

The study included 19 000 individuals. There were 10 154 above the age of 50 included for analysis. Prevalence of frailty in the age group of 50–64 years was 4.7% and 8.7% in the age group of 65 years and above.

The study demonstrates associations between frailty and high age, female gender, low education level, low income, smoking, living alone, frequency of seeing one’s children and getting help when needed. These associations are comparable with findings from other studies.

The syndrome of frailty consists of not only physiological and medical issues but also education, life conditions such as living alone and living in poverty and how you evaluate your own health.

Public health interventions are designed to improve specific health-related outcomes; however, they may also produce negative side effects, such as substitution use, psychological or social harms. Knowledge about the unintended effects of school-based smoking preventive interventions is sparse. Hence, this study examined these potential unintended effects of the smoking-reducing intervention, Focus, among students in the vocational education and training setting.

Cluster randomised controlled trial stratified by school type with 5 months follow-up.

Across Denmark, eight schools were randomised to the intervention group (n=844 students, response proportion 76%) and six schools to the control group (n=815 students, response proportion 75%). This study focused solely on students who smoked at baseline (N=491).

The intervention was developed systematically based on theory and a thoroughly mixed-methods needs assessment. Intervention components included a comprehensive school tobacco policy (smoke-free school hours) supported by a 3-day course for school staff and launched by an edutainment session for students; class-based lessons and a quit-and-win competition; and individual telephone smoking cessation support.

Alternative tobacco and nicotine products (regular use of smokeless tobacco, hookah and e-cigarettes), regular cannabis use, boredom and loneliness at school, stress and perceived stigmatisation among smokers.

We found no statistically significant unintended effects of the intervention. Nonetheless, insignificant findings indicated that students in the intervention group were less likely to be bored during school hours (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.10) and experience stress (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.10), but more likely to report feeling stigmatised compared with the control group (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.40).

Overall, findings suggested no unintended effects of the Focus trial with respect to substitution use, psychological, nor group or social harms. Future research is encouraged to report potential harmful outcomes of smoking preventive interventions, and interventions should be aware of the possible stigmatisation of smokers.

ISRCTN16455577.