Vivian H Cheung1, Len Gray, Mohanraj Karunanithi. 1. Centre for Research in Geriatric Medicine, School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. v.cheung@uq.edu.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review studies that used accelerometers to classify human movements and to appraise their potential to determine the activities of older patients in hospital settings. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science electronic databases. A search constraint of articles published in English language between January 1980 and March 2010 was applied. STUDY SELECTION: All studies that validated the use of accelerometers to classify human postural movements and mobility were included. Studies included participants from any age group. All types of accelerometers were included. Outcome measures criteria explored within the studies were comparisons of derived classifications of postural movements and mobility against those made by using observations. Based on these criteria, 54 studies were selected for detailed review from 526 initially identified studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by the first author and included characteristics of study participants, accelerometers used, body positions of device attachment, study setting, duration, methods, results, and limitations of the validation studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: The accelerometer-based monitoring technique was investigated predominantly on a small sample of healthy adult participants in a laboratory setting. Most studies applied multiple accelerometers on the sternum, wrists, thighs, and shanks of participants. Most studies collected validation data while participants performed a predefined standardized activity protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometer devices have the potential to monitor human movements continuously to determine postural movements and mobility for the assessment of functional ability. Future studies should focus on long-term monitoring of free daily activity of a large sample of mobility-impaired or older hospitalized patients, who are at risk for functional decline. Use of a single waist-mounted triaxial accelerometer would be the most practical and useful option.
OBJECTIVES: To review studies that used accelerometers to classify human movements and to appraise their potential to determine the activities of older patients in hospital settings. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science electronic databases. A search constraint of articles published in English language between January 1980 and March 2010 was applied. STUDY SELECTION: All studies that validated the use of accelerometers to classify human postural movements and mobility were included. Studies included participants from any age group. All types of accelerometers were included. Outcome measures criteria explored within the studies were comparisons of derived classifications of postural movements and mobility against those made by using observations. Based on these criteria, 54 studies were selected for detailed review from 526 initially identified studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by the first author and included characteristics of study participants, accelerometers used, body positions of device attachment, study setting, duration, methods, results, and limitations of the validation studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: The accelerometer-based monitoring technique was investigated predominantly on a small sample of healthy adult participants in a laboratory setting. Most studies applied multiple accelerometers on the sternum, wrists, thighs, and shanks of participants. Most studies collected validation data while participants performed a predefined standardized activity protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometer devices have the potential to monitor human movements continuously to determine postural movements and mobility for the assessment of functional ability. Future studies should focus on long-term monitoring of free daily activity of a large sample of mobility-impaired or older hospitalized patients, who are at risk for functional decline. Use of a single waist-mounted triaxial accelerometer would be the most practical and useful option.
Authors: Megan Huisingh-Scheetz; Masha Kocherginsky; Phillip L Schumm; Michal Engelman; Martha K McClintock; William Dale; Elizabeth Magett; Patricia Rush; Linda Waite Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: David Snipelisky; Jacob Kelly; James A Levine; Gabriel A Koepp; Kevin J Anstrom; Steven E McNulty; Rosita Zakeri; G Michael Felker; Adrian F Hernandez; Eugene Braunwald; Margaret M Redfield Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Henryk F Urbanski; Steven G Kohama; G Alexander West; Christine Glynn; Rebecca L Williams-Karnesky; Eric Earl; Martha N Neuringer; Lauren Renner; Alison Weiss; Mary Stenzel-Poore; Frances Rena Bahjat Journal: Transl Stroke Res Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 6.829
Authors: Margaret M Redfield; Kevin J Anstrom; James A Levine; Gabe A Koepp; Barry A Borlaug; Horng H Chen; Martin M LeWinter; Susan M Joseph; Sanjiv J Shah; Marc J Semigran; G Michael Felker; Robert T Cole; Gordon R Reeves; Ryan J Tedford; W H Wilson Tang; Steven E McNulty; Eric J Velazquez; Monica R Shah; Eugene Braunwald Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrea L Rosso; Stephanie A Studenski; Wen G Chen; Howard J Aizenstein; Neil B Alexander; David A Bennett; Sandra E Black; Richard Camicioli; Michelle C Carlson; Luigi Ferrucci; Jack M Guralnik; Jeffrey M Hausdorff; Jeff Kaye; Lenore J Launer; Lewis A Lipsitz; Joe Verghese; Caterina Rosano Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Pin-Wei Chen; Nathan A Baune; Igor Zwir; Jiayu Wang; Victoria Swamidass; Alex W K Wong Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 3.390