Dataset Information

Evaluation of Wearable Technology in Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background: The objective of this analysis was to systematically review studies employing wearable technology in patients with dementia by quantifying differences in digitally captured physiological endpoints. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was based on web searches of Cochrane Database, PsycInfo, Pubmed, Embase, and IEEE between October 25-31st, 2017. Observational studies providing physiological data measured by wearable technology on participants with dementia with a mean age ≥50. Data were extracted according to PRISMA guidelines and methodological quality assessed independently using Downs and Black criteria. Standardized mean differences between cases and controls were estimated using random-effects models. Results: Forty-eight studies from 18,456 screened abstracts (Dementia: n = 2,516, Control: n = 1,224) met inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Nineteen of these studies were included in one or multiple meta-analyses (Dementia: n = 617, Control: n = 406). Participants with dementia demonstrated lower levels of daily activity (standardized mean difference (SMD), -1.60; 95% CI, -2.66 to -0.55), decreased sleep efficiency (SMD, -0.52; 95% CI, -0.89 to -0.16), and greater intradaily circadian variability (SMD, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.65) than controls, among other measures. Statistical between-study heterogeneity was observed, possibly due to variation in testing duration, device type or patient setting. Conclusions and Relevance: Digitally captured data using wearable devices revealed that adults with dementia were less active, demonstrated increased fragmentation of their sleep-wake cycle and a loss of typical diurnal variation in circadian rhythm as compared to controls.

SUBMITTER: Cote AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7829192 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHigh levels of sedentary behaviour (SB) are associated with negative health consequences. Technology enhanced solutions such as mobile applications, activity monitors, prompting software, texts, emails and websites are being harnessed to reduce SB. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of such technology enhanced interventions aimed at reducing SB in healthy adults and to examine the behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used.MethodsFive electronic databases were searched to identify randomised-controlled trials (RCTs), published up to June 2016. Interventions using computer, mobile or wearable technologies to facilitate a reduction in SB, using a measure of sedentary time as an outcome, were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and interventions were coded using the BCT Taxonomy (v1).ResultsMeta-analysis of 15/17 RCTs suggested that computer, mobile and wearable technology tools resulted in a mean reduction of -41.28 min per day (min/day) of sitting time (95% CI -60.99, -21.58, I2 = 77%, n = 1402), in favour of the intervention group at end point follow-up. The pooled effects showed mean reductions at short (≤ 3 months), medium (>3 to 6 months), and long-term follow-up (>6 months) of -42.42 min/day, -37.23 min/day and -1.65 min/day, respectively. Overall, 16/17 studies were deemed as having a high or unclear risk of bias, and 1/17 was judged to be at a low risk of bias. A total of 46 BCTs (14 unique) were coded for the computer, mobile and wearable components of the interventions. The most frequently coded were "prompts and cues", "self-monitoring of behaviour", "social support (unspecified)" and "goal setting (behaviour)".ConclusionInterventions using computer, mobile and wearable technologies can be effective in reducing SB. Effectiveness appeared most prominent in the short-term and lessened over time. A range of BCTs have been implemented in these interventions. Future studies need to improve reporting of BCTs within interventions and address the methodological flaws identified within the review through the use of more rigorously controlled study designs with longer-term follow-ups, objective measures of SB and the incorporation of strategies to reduce attrition.Trial registrationThe review protocol was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42016038187.

Project description:IntroductionInformation technology can enhance timely and individual support for people with dementia and informal carers. There is some evidence that people with dementia and informal carers would benefit from technology-based counselling. However, it remains unclear which features of those interventions relate to beneficial outcomes and which aspects are necessary for a successful implementation. Therefore, the primary objectives are: (1) to identify conditions of successful implementation of technology-based counselling interventions in dementia and (2) to investigate the effectiveness of those interventions.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review. The first primary objective requires evidence from various study designs addressing aspects on effective and non-effective implementation of technology-based counselling. This could be telephone-based, web-based or mobile-based interventions for people with dementia and informal carers. For the second primary objective, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) dealing with any outcomes will be included. Year of publication and language will not be restricted. We will search CINAHL, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science up to April 2021. Additionally, we will perform web searching and citation tracking. To achieve the first primary objective, a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) will be conducted. The QCA enables us to identify necessary or sufficient components for a successful implementation. To reach the second primary objective, a meta-analysis will be performed with respect to potential clinical and statistical heterogeneity of RCTs. The revised Risk of Bias tool 2.0 will be used to check the risk of bias in RCTs. For all other study designs, the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool will be used.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this review. We will disseminate our findings through scientific and non-scientific journal articles and conference presentations as well as formats directed to the public and decision-makers in healthcare.Prospero registration numberCRD42021245473.

Project description:Abstract Aims High blood pressure (BP) is the commonest modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, yet its monitoring remains problematic. Wearable cuffless BP devices offer potential solutions; however, little is known about their validity and utility. We aimed to systematically review the validity, features and clinical use of wearable cuffless BP devices. Methods and results We searched MEDLINE, Embase, IEEE Xplore and the Cochrane Database till December 2019 for studies that reported validating cuffless BP devices. We extracted information about study characteristics, device features, validation processes, and clinical applications. Devices were classified according to their functions and features. We defined devices with a mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) biases of <5 mmHg as valid as a consensus. Our definition of validity did not include assessment of device measurement precision, which is assessed by standard deviation of the mean difference—a critical component of ISO protocol validation criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to summarise the mean biases for SBP and DBP across studies. Of the 430 studies identified, 16 studies (15 devices, 974 participants) were selected. The majority of devices (81.3%) used photoplethysmography to estimate BP against a reference device; other technologies included tonometry, auscultation and electrocardiogram. In addition to BP and heart rate, some devices also measured night-time BP (n = 5), sleep monitoring (n = 3), oxygen saturation (n = 3), temperature (n = 2) and electrocardiogram (n = 3). Eight devices showed mean biases of <5 mmHg for SBP and DBP compared with a reference device and three devices were commercially available. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the wearable and reference devices for SBP (pooled mean difference = 3.42 mmHg, 95% CI: −2.17, 9.01, I2 95.4%) and DBP (pooled mean = 1.16 mmHg, 95% CI: −1.26, 3.58, I2 87.1%). Conclusion Several cuffless BP devices are currently available using different technologies, offering the potential for continuous BP monitoring. The variation in standards and validation protocols limited the comparability of findings across studies and the identification of the most accurate device. Challenges such as validation using standard protocols and in real-life settings must be overcome before they can be recommended for uptake into clinical practice. Graphical Abstract Graphical abstract Wearable BP device system.

Project description:Importance:Fear of dementia is pervasive in older people with cognitive concerns. Much research is devoted to finding prognostic markers for dementia risk. Studies suggest apathy in older people may be prodromal to dementia and could be a relevant, easily measurable predictor of increased dementia risk. However, evidence is fragmented and methods vary greatly between studies. Objective:To systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the evidence for an association between apathy in dementia-free older individuals and incident dementia. Data Sources:Two reviewers conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO databases. Study Selection:Inclusion criteria were (1) prospective cohort studies, (2) in general populations or memory clinic patients without dementia, (3) with clear definitions of apathy and dementia, and (4) reporting on the association between apathy and incident dementia. Data Extraction and Synthesis:PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines were followed. Data were extracted by 1 reviewer and checked by a second. Main Outcomes and Measures:Main outcomes were pooled crude risk ratios, maximally adjusted reported hazard ratios (HR), and odds ratios (OR) using DerSimonian-Laird random effects models. Results:The mean age of the study populations ranged from 69.2 to 81.9 years (median, 71.6 years) and the percentage of women ranged from 35% to 70% (median, 53%). After screening 2031 titles and abstracts, 16 studies comprising 7365 participants were included. Apathy status was available for 7299 participants. Studies included populations with subjective cognitive concerns (n = 2), mild cognitive impairment (n = 11), cognitive impairment no dementia (n = 1), or mixed cognitive and no cognitive impairment (n = 2). Apathy was present in 1470 of 7299 participants (20.1%). Follow-up ranged from 1.2 to 5.4 years. In studies using validated apathy definitions (n = 12), the combined risk ratio of dementia for patients with apathy was 1.81 (95% CI, 1.32-2.50; I2 = 76%; n = 12), the hazard ratio was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.27-4.51; I2 = 90%; n = 7), and the odds ratio was 17.14 (95% CI, 1.91-154.0; I2 = 60%; n = 2). Subgroup analyses, meta-regression, and individual study results suggested the association between apathy and dementia weakened with increasing follow-up time, age, and cognitive impairment. Meta-regression adjusting for apathy definition and follow-up time explained 95% of heterogeneity in mild cognitive impairment. Conclusions and Relevance:Apathy was associated with an approximately 2-fold increased risk of dementia in memory clinic patients. Moderate publication bias may have inflated some of these estimates. Apathy deserves more attention as a relevant, cheap, noninvasive, and easily measureable marker of increased risk of incident dementia with high clinical relevance, particularly because these vulnerable patients may forgo health care.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of Wearable Technology in Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets