Sensor-based fall risk assessment in older adults with or without cognitive impairment: a systematic review.
Cognition
Dementia
Elderly
Risk of falling
Wearable sensors
Journal
European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity
ISSN: 1813-7253
Titre abrégé: Eur Rev Aging Phys Act
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101284836
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Jul 2021
09 Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
28
10
2020
accepted:
13
06
2021
entrez:
10
7
2021
pubmed:
11
7
2021
medline:
11
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Higher age and cognitive impairment are associated with a higher risk of falling. Wearable sensor technology may be useful in objectively assessing motor fall risk factors to improve physical exercise interventions for fall prevention. This systematic review aims at providing an updated overview of the current research on wearable sensors for fall risk assessment in older adults with or without cognitive impairment. Therefore, we addressed two specific research questions: 1) Can wearable sensors provide accurate data on motor performance that may be used to assess risk of falling, e.g., by distinguishing between faller and non-faller in a sample of older adults with or without cognitive impairment?; and 2) Which practical recommendations can be given for the application of sensor-based fall risk assessment in individuals with CI? A systematic literature search (July 2019, update July 2020) was conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Community-based studies or studies conducted in a geriatric setting that examine fall risk factors in older adults (aged ≥60 years) with or without cognitive impairment were included. Predefined inclusion criteria yielded 16 cross-sectional, 10 prospective and 2 studies with a mixed design. Overall, sensor-based data was mainly collected during walking tests in a lab setting. The main sensor location was the lower back to provide wearing comfort and avoid disturbance of participants. The most accurate fall risk classification model included data from sit-to-walk and walk-to-sit transitions collected over three days of daily life (mean accuracy = 88.0%). Nine out of 28 included studies revealed information about sensor use in older adults with possible cognitive impairment, but classification models performed slightly worse than those for older adults without cognitive impairment (mean accuracy = 79.0%). Fall risk assessment using wearable sensors is feasible in older adults regardless of their cognitive status. Accuracy may vary depending on sensor location, sensor attachment and type of assessment chosen for the recording of sensor data. More research on the use of sensors for objective fall risk assessment in older adults is needed, particularly in older adults with cognitive impairment. This systematic review is registered in PROSPERO ( CRD42020171118 ).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Higher age and cognitive impairment are associated with a higher risk of falling. Wearable sensor technology may be useful in objectively assessing motor fall risk factors to improve physical exercise interventions for fall prevention. This systematic review aims at providing an updated overview of the current research on wearable sensors for fall risk assessment in older adults with or without cognitive impairment. Therefore, we addressed two specific research questions: 1) Can wearable sensors provide accurate data on motor performance that may be used to assess risk of falling, e.g., by distinguishing between faller and non-faller in a sample of older adults with or without cognitive impairment?; and 2) Which practical recommendations can be given for the application of sensor-based fall risk assessment in individuals with CI? A systematic literature search (July 2019, update July 2020) was conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Community-based studies or studies conducted in a geriatric setting that examine fall risk factors in older adults (aged ≥60 years) with or without cognitive impairment were included. Predefined inclusion criteria yielded 16 cross-sectional, 10 prospective and 2 studies with a mixed design.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, sensor-based data was mainly collected during walking tests in a lab setting. The main sensor location was the lower back to provide wearing comfort and avoid disturbance of participants. The most accurate fall risk classification model included data from sit-to-walk and walk-to-sit transitions collected over three days of daily life (mean accuracy = 88.0%). Nine out of 28 included studies revealed information about sensor use in older adults with possible cognitive impairment, but classification models performed slightly worse than those for older adults without cognitive impairment (mean accuracy = 79.0%).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Fall risk assessment using wearable sensors is feasible in older adults regardless of their cognitive status. Accuracy may vary depending on sensor location, sensor attachment and type of assessment chosen for the recording of sensor data. More research on the use of sensors for objective fall risk assessment in older adults is needed, particularly in older adults with cognitive impairment.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
This systematic review is registered in PROSPERO ( CRD42020171118 ).
Identifiants
pubmed: 34243722
doi: 10.1186/s11556-021-00266-w
pii: 10.1186/s11556-021-00266-w
pmc: PMC8272315
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
15Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-98
pubmed: 1202204
BMC Geriatr. 2013 Jan 15;13:6
pubmed: 23320746
Telemed J E Health. 2009 Apr;15(3):296-9
pubmed: 19382869
Gerontology. 2016;62(6):654-664
pubmed: 27160666
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003 Oct;51(10):1451-4
pubmed: 14511167
J Gerontol. 1994 Mar;49(2):M85-94
pubmed: 8126356
Int Psychogeriatr. 2016 Oct;28(10):1687-94
pubmed: 27585706
Sensors (Basel). 2020 Jun 05;20(11):
pubmed: 32516995
Res Involv Engagem. 2017 Aug 1;3:12
pubmed: 29062537
Gerontology. 2014;60(6):483-92
pubmed: 25171300
Maturitas. 2013 May;75(1):51-61
pubmed: 23523272
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2018;45(5-6):353-367
pubmed: 30041187
PLoS One. 2018 May 10;13(5):e0197091
pubmed: 29746520
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2018 Mar;26(3):573-582
pubmed: 29522401
Clin Rehabil. 1999 Apr;13(2):164-70
pubmed: 10348397
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jan 31;1:CD012424
pubmed: 30703272
Sci Rep. 2021 Jan 28;11(1):2471
pubmed: 33510202
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Brain Cogn. 2008 Apr;66(3):221-31
pubmed: 17950510
Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 5;8(1):16349
pubmed: 30397282
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011 Jun 28;11:48
pubmed: 21711504
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016 Aug;71(8):1102-8
pubmed: 26916339
Gait Posture. 2011 Mar;33(3):366-72
pubmed: 21227697
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991 Feb;39(2):142-8
pubmed: 1991946
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015 Jan;29(1):54-61
pubmed: 24759809
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015 Feb;16(2):149-54
pubmed: 25304179
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2017 Nov;21(6):1479-1486
pubmed: 28278486
Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2012 Dec;45(8):694-706
pubmed: 23184295
Front Aging Neurosci. 2018 Mar 05;10:44
pubmed: 29556188
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2017 Jul;64(7):1602-1607
pubmed: 28113226
Gait Posture. 2012 Jun;36(2):296-300
pubmed: 22512847
Gerontology. 2015;61(1):69-78
pubmed: 25138223
Physiol Meas. 2011 Dec;32(12):2003-18
pubmed: 22094550
Gait Posture. 2018 Sep;65:112-116
pubmed: 30558916
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2019 Nov - Dec;85:103911
pubmed: 31400647
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016 Nov;71(11):1459-1465
pubmed: 25934996
Gerontology. 2012;58(5):472-80
pubmed: 22571883
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012 Feb;13(2):187.e1-6
pubmed: 21816682
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014 Aug;69(8):987-95
pubmed: 24149433
IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med. 2016 Dec 01;4:2700211
pubmed: 28439481
BMC Geriatr. 2018 Jan 16;18(1):14
pubmed: 29338695
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2017 Nov;17(11):2274-2282
pubmed: 28176431
Gait Posture. 2020 Feb;76:110-121
pubmed: 31756666
Artif Intell Med. 2019 Apr;95:38-47
pubmed: 30195985
Int J Med Inform. 2019 Oct;130:103946
pubmed: 31450081
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013 Aug 08;10(1):91
pubmed: 23927446
J Biomech. 2016 Jun 14;49(9):1420-1428
pubmed: 27062593
Inform Health Soc Care. 2014 Sep-Dec;39(3-4):249-61
pubmed: 25148560
NPJ Digit Med. 2018 Jul 11;1:25
pubmed: 31304307
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2015;18(4):426-37
pubmed: 23964848
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2019;48(1-2):17-29
pubmed: 31743907
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 07;11(4):e0153240
pubmed: 27054878
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 Oct;27(8):742-52
pubmed: 23774124
Inj Prev. 2020 Oct;26(5):412-416
pubmed: 31471327
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2018;46(1-2):81-89
pubmed: 30145584
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 25;11(1):e0147601
pubmed: 26808317
Technol Health Care. 2015;23(2):195-203
pubmed: 25468758
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011 Jan 17;8:2
pubmed: 21241487
Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. 2019 Nov 3;16:20
pubmed: 31700552
Sensors (Basel). 2018 Apr 21;18(4):
pubmed: 29690496
Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2009 Aug;42(4):317-21
pubmed: 19543681
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2015 May;70(5):608-15
pubmed: 25568095
Physiother Can. 2017;69(2):161-170
pubmed: 28539696
Gait Posture. 2017 Sep;57:168-171
pubmed: 28645093
Science. 1988 Jun 3;240(4857):1285-93
pubmed: 3287615
Sensors (Basel). 2017 Jun 28;17(7):
pubmed: 28657587