Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology · 2023
Technologies for monitoring activities of daily living in older adults: a systematic review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gadey Natasha, Pataunia Patricia, Chan Andrew, Ríos Rincón Adriana
Аннотация
PURPOSE: As the older adult population rise globally, technologies to monitoring activities of daily living (ADL) may have a role in supporting aging in place for older adults. The objective of this systematic literature review was to study the scope, diversity and readiness of technologies developed to monitor ADL in older adults.
METHODS: We systematically searched two scientific databases (CINAHL and IEEE), following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We included studies on technologies used to monitor older adults' ADL in the home but excluded studies focused on communication technologies (phone calls, text messages) or monitoring postures alone. The JBI checklist for case series was used for quality assessment. Extracted details included population characteristics, ADL assessment outcomes, types of monitoring technology, and technology readiness and usability.
RESULTS: The search found 147 papers, with 16 papers included in the final analysis. The literature described 48 types of technologies. Of moderate quality studies, five studies used wearables at technology readiness level 4-6 to monitor basic ADL (walking, transfers and walking up stairs) and one used ambient sensors to detect urinary incontinence.
CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring technologies remain at development stages. More research is needed to strengthen technologies that monitor activities of daily living.
METHODS: We systematically searched two scientific databases (CINAHL and IEEE), following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We included studies on technologies used to monitor older adults' ADL in the home but excluded studies focused on communication technologies (phone calls, text messages) or monitoring postures alone. The JBI checklist for case series was used for quality assessment. Extracted details included population characteristics, ADL assessment outcomes, types of monitoring technology, and technology readiness and usability.
RESULTS: The search found 147 papers, with 16 papers included in the final analysis. The literature described 48 types of technologies. Of moderate quality studies, five studies used wearables at technology readiness level 4-6 to monitor basic ADL (walking, transfers and walking up stairs) and one used ambient sensors to detect urinary incontinence.
CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring technologies remain at development stages. More research is needed to strengthen technologies that monitor activities of daily living.