| Literature DB >> 32880582 |
Ben Kim1, Sandra M McKay2,3, Joon Lee4,5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty has detrimental health impacts on older home care clients and is associated with increased hospitalization and long-term care admission. The prevalence of frailty among home care clients is poorly understood and ranges from 4.0% to 59.1%. Although frailty screening tools exist, their inconsistent use in practice calls for more innovative and easier-to-use tools. Owing to increases in the capacity of wearable devices, as well as in technology literacy and adoption in Canadian older adults, wearable devices are emerging as a viable tool to assess frailty in this population.Entities:
Keywords: activities of daily living, sleep; frailty; home care; mobile health; physical activity; prediction; predictive modeling, older adults; wearables
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32880582 PMCID: PMC7499164 DOI: 10.2196/19732
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Baseline sociodemographic and patient characteristics stratified by frailty status.
| Characteristics | Frail (n=13) | Nonfrail (n=24) | ||
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 83.92 (9.66) | 80.61 (13.96) | <.001a | |
|
|
|
| >.999b | |
|
| Male | 3 (23) | 6 (25) |
|
|
| Female | 10 (77) | 18 (75) |
|
| BMI (kg/m2), mean (SD) | 26.96 (6.70) | 28.54 (5.43) | .44c | |
| ADLd score, mean (SD) | 4.62 (1.45) | 5.08 (0.88) | .43a | |
| CCIe score, mean (SD) | 1.92 (1.26) | 1.25 (1.11) | .11a | |
|
|
|
| .29b | |
|
| Single | 1 (8) | 7 (29) |
|
|
| Divorced or separated | 2 (15) | 5 (21) |
|
|
| Widowed | 4 (31) | 7 (29) |
|
|
| Currently married | 6 (46) | 5 (21) |
|
|
|
|
| .12b | |
|
| High school or less | 8 (62) | 7 (29) |
|
|
| Postsecondary or higher | 5 (38) | 17 (71) |
|
|
|
|
| .03b | |
|
| Prefer not to answer | 7 (54) | 3 (12) | .06f |
|
| Low income | 4 (31) | 13 (54) | .93f |
|
| Mid to high income | 2 (15) | 8 (33) | >.999f |
|
|
|
| .71b | |
|
| White | 10 (77) | 21 (88) |
|
|
| Other | 3 (23) | 3 (12) |
|
| Personal support service, hours per week | 5.15 (3.51) | 2.77 (1.85) | .01a | |
aMann-Whitney U test was used.
bChi-square test was used.
cAn independent t test was used.
dADL: activities of daily living; Katz index of independence was used.
eCCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index.
fPosthoc chi-square test was used.
Difference in the data collected from the wearable device between frail and nonfrail participants.
| Measures | Frail (n=13), mean (SD) | Nonfrail (n=24), mean (SD) | ||
| Worn time (hours per day) | 20.66 (1.03) | 19.69 (1.82) | .16a | |
| Daily step count | 367.11 (272.63) | 1023.95 (863.83) | .04a | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Deep sleep time (minutes) | 138.90 (64.00) | 75.65 (39.12) | <.001a |
|
| Light sleep time (minutes) | 350.88 (130.56) | 312.78 (82.32) | .35b |
|
| Total sleep time (minutes) | 489.78 (139.54) | 388.44 (93.28) | .01a |
|
| Awake time (minutes) | 36.03 (24.27) | 65.05 (57.97) | .17a |
|
| Sleep quality (%) | 92.48 (5.62) | 78.95 (26.53) | .08a |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Heart rate (bpm) | 82.77 (10.25) | 77.43 (8.66) | .13b |
|
| Heart rate SD (bpm) | 22.12 (7.61) | 18.78 (4.54) | .17b |
aMann-Whitney U test was used.
bAn independent t test was used.
Correlations between wearable device data, patient characteristics, and frailty.
|
| Frailty | ||
|
| Correlation coefficient | ||
| Daily step count | –0.52 | .001 | |
|
|
|
| |
|
| Total sleep time | 0.52 | .001 |
|
| Deep sleep time | 0.47 | .003 |
|
| Light sleep time | 0.35 | .03 |
|
| Sleep quality | 0.56 | <.001 |
|
| Awake time | –0.54 | <.001 |
|
|
|
| |
|
| Mean heart rate | 0.11 | .54 |
|
| Heart rate SD | –0.25 | .16 |
|
|
|
| |
|
| Age | 0.29 | .08 |
|
| Sex | 0.074 | .66 |
|
| BMI | –0.068 | .69 |
|
| Income level | –0.066 | .74 |
|
| Education level | –0.40 | .02 |
|
|
|
| |
|
| ADLa score | –0.18 | .27 |
|
| CCIb score | 0.16 | .33 |
| Personal support hours | 0.23 | .17 | |
aADL: activities of daily living; Katz index of independence was used.
bCCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index.
Three frailty prediction models and the variables selected by the stepwise feature selection method.
| Models | Variable pool | Selected variables |
| Model 1 | Sociodemographic and patient assessment variables | CCIa, education level |
| Model 2 | Wearable device–derived variables | Step count, deep sleep time, light sleep time, heart rate standard deviation |
| Model 3 | Sociodemographic, patient assessment, and wearable device–derived variables | Deep sleep time, step count, age, education level |
aCCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index.
Multiple logistic regression of factors associated with frailty.
| Model and variables | Adjusted ORa (95 % CI) | ||||
|
|
|
| |||
|
| CCIb | 1.78 (0.95, 3.66) | .09 | ||
|
| Education level—high school or below | reference | — | ||
|
| Education level—postsecondary education or higher | 0.22 (0.04, 0.96) | .05 | ||
|
|
|
| |||
|
| Step count | 1.00 (1.00, 1.00) | .17 | ||
|
| Deep sleep time | 1.02 (1.01, 1.05) | .02 | ||
|
| Awake time | 0.97 (0.93, 1.01) | .18 | ||
|
| Heart rate standard deviation | 1.17 (0.99, 1.46) | .10 | ||
|
|
|
| |||
|
| Deep sleep time | 1.03 (1.01, 1.07) | .04 | ||
|
| Step count | 1.00 (1.00, 1.00) | .06 | ||
|
| Age | 0.90 (0.80, 0.99) | .04 | ||
|
| Education level—high school or less | reference | — | ||
|
| Education level—postsecondary education or higher | 0.11 (0.01, 0.94) | .06 | ||
aOR: odds ratio.
bCCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index.
Summary of model performance in predicting frailty status.
| Models | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUROCa | Hosmer-Lemeshow test |
| Model 1: Sociodemographic and patient assessment variables | 0.76 | 0.46 | 0.92 | 0.77 | 0.73 |
| Model 2:Wearable device derived variables | 0.81 | 0.69 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.95 |
| Model 3: All variables from models 1 and 2 | 0.81 | 0.69 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.85 |
aAUROC: area under the receiver operating characteristics curve.
Figure 1The receiver operating characteristics curves (with area under the curve) for all models fitted to predict frailty. AUC: area under the curve.