Differences in Life Space Activity Patterns Between Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment Living Alone or as a Couple: Cohort Study Using Passive Activity Sensing.
2-person home
activities of daily living
activity pattern
aging
at home
cognition
cognitive impairment
daily activities
digital health
elder
geriatric
gerontology
in-home sensor
life space activity
mild cognitive impairment
old age
older adult
passive monitoring
sensor
technology
Journal
JMIR aging
ISSN: 2561-7605
Titre abrégé: JMIR Aging
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101740387
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Oct 2023
11 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
23
01
2023
accepted:
12
09
2023
revised:
18
08
2023
medline:
11
10
2023
pubmed:
11
10
2023
entrez:
11
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Measuring function with passive in-home sensors has the advantages of real-world, objective, continuous, and unobtrusive measurement. However, previous studies have focused on 1-person homes only, which limits their generalizability. This study aimed to compare the life space activity patterns of participants living alone with those of participants living as a couple and to compare people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) with cognitively normal participants in both 1- and 2-person homes. Passive infrared motion sensors and door contact sensors were installed in 1- and 2-person homes with cognitively normal residents or residents with MCI. A home was classified as an MCI home if at least 1 person in the home had MCI. Time out of home (TOOH), independent life space activity (ILSA), and use of the living room, kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom were calculated. Data were analyzed using the following methods: (1) daily averages over 4 weeks, (2) hourly averages (time of day) over 4 weeks, or (3) longitudinal day-to-day changes. In total, 129 homes with people living alone (n=27, 20.9%, MCI and n=102, 79.1%, no-MCI homes) and 52 homes with people living as a couple (n=24, 46.2%, MCI and n=28, 53.8%, no-MCI homes) were included with a mean follow-up of 719 (SD 308) days. Using all 3 analysis methods, we found that 2-person homes showed a shorter TOOH, a longer ILSA, and shorter living room and kitchen use. In MCI homes, ILSA was higher in 2-person homes but lower in 1-person homes. The effects of MCI status on other outcomes were only found when using the hourly averages or longitudinal day-to-day changes over time, and they depended on the household type (alone vs residing as a couple). This study shows that in-home behavior is different when a participant is living alone compared to when they are living as a couple, meaning that the household type should be considered when studying in-home behavior. The effects of MCI status can be detected with in-home sensors, even in 2-person homes, but data should be analyzed on an hour-to-hour basis or longitudinally.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Measuring function with passive in-home sensors has the advantages of real-world, objective, continuous, and unobtrusive measurement. However, previous studies have focused on 1-person homes only, which limits their generalizability.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to compare the life space activity patterns of participants living alone with those of participants living as a couple and to compare people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) with cognitively normal participants in both 1- and 2-person homes.
METHODS
METHODS
Passive infrared motion sensors and door contact sensors were installed in 1- and 2-person homes with cognitively normal residents or residents with MCI. A home was classified as an MCI home if at least 1 person in the home had MCI. Time out of home (TOOH), independent life space activity (ILSA), and use of the living room, kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom were calculated. Data were analyzed using the following methods: (1) daily averages over 4 weeks, (2) hourly averages (time of day) over 4 weeks, or (3) longitudinal day-to-day changes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 129 homes with people living alone (n=27, 20.9%, MCI and n=102, 79.1%, no-MCI homes) and 52 homes with people living as a couple (n=24, 46.2%, MCI and n=28, 53.8%, no-MCI homes) were included with a mean follow-up of 719 (SD 308) days. Using all 3 analysis methods, we found that 2-person homes showed a shorter TOOH, a longer ILSA, and shorter living room and kitchen use. In MCI homes, ILSA was higher in 2-person homes but lower in 1-person homes. The effects of MCI status on other outcomes were only found when using the hourly averages or longitudinal day-to-day changes over time, and they depended on the household type (alone vs residing as a couple).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study shows that in-home behavior is different when a participant is living alone compared to when they are living as a couple, meaning that the household type should be considered when studying in-home behavior. The effects of MCI status can be detected with in-home sensors, even in 2-person homes, but data should be analyzed on an hour-to-hour basis or longitudinally.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37819694
pii: v6i1e45876
doi: 10.2196/45876
pmc: PMC10600648
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e45876Subventions
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : P30 AG066518
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : P30 AG008017
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : RF1 AG022018
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R01 AG017917
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : U2C AG054397
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
©Marijn Muurling, Wan-Tai M Au-Yeung, Zachary Beattie, Chao-Yi Wu, Hiroko Dodge, Nathaniel K Rodrigues, Sarah Gothard, Lisa C Silbert, Lisa L Barnes, Joel S Steele, Jeffrey Kaye. Originally published in JMIR Aging (https://aging.jmir.org), 11.10.2023.
Références
J Pers Med. 2021 Dec 24;12(1):
pubmed: 35055326
BMC Public Health. 2018 Apr 20;18(1):530
pubmed: 29678152
Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2022 Mar 13;8(1):e12267
pubmed: 35310524
Digit Biomark. 2020 Nov 26;4(Suppl 1):100-118
pubmed: 33442584
Neuroepidemiology. 2013;41(1):35-41
pubmed: 23712106
CNS Spectr. 2019 Feb;24(1):78-87
pubmed: 30651152
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2022 Oct 6;77(10):2077-2084
pubmed: 34608939
Neuroepidemiology. 2006;27(3):169-76
pubmed: 17035694
Neurology. 1993 Nov;43(11):2412-4
pubmed: 8232972
Int J Alzheimers Dis. 2021 Feb 10;2021:2679398
pubmed: 33628484
J Gerontol. 1982 May;37(3):323-9
pubmed: 7069156
Lancet. 2006 Apr 15;367(9518):1262-70
pubmed: 16631882
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Aug 30;21(8):e12785
pubmed: 31471958
J Med Internet Res. 2020 May 5;22(5):e16854
pubmed: 32369031
Alzheimers Dement. 2011 May;7(3):270-9
pubmed: 21514249
Curr Alzheimer Res. 2012 Jul;9(6):734-45
pubmed: 22471868
Front Digit Health. 2021 Oct 26;3:764510
pubmed: 34766104
BMJ Open. 2018 Jul 7;8(7):e020683
pubmed: 29982203
Brain. 2015 May;138(Pt 5):1327-38
pubmed: 25693589
Neurology. 2002 Jul 23;59(2):198-205
pubmed: 12136057