Telemonitoring is regarded as a means to maintain a relatively high quality of life for independently living elderly. This paper discusses a requirements study of a system to, foremost, telemonitor activities of daily living (ADL) of the elderly. The study utilizes literature and in-depth interviews with medical specialists. From the interview results can be concluded that, besides from elderly’s own input, monitoring different aspects of movement, food consumption and sleep pattern are regarded as most beneficial to the medical specialists.
Sensor technology is increasingly applied for the purpose of monitoring elderly’s Activities of Daily Living (ADL), a set of activities used by physicians to benchmark physical and cognitive decline. Visualizing deviations in ADL can help medical specialists and nurses to recognize disease symptoms at an early stage. This paper presents possible visualizations for identifying such deviations. These visualizations have been iteratively explored and developed with three different medical specialists to better understand which deviations are relevant according to the different medical specialisms and explore how these deviations should be best presented. The study results suggest that the participants found a monthly bar graph in which activities are represented by colours as the most suitable from the ones presented. Although the visualizations of every ADL was found to be more or less relevant by the different medical specialists, the preference for focusing on specific ADL’s varied from specialist to specialist.
The aim of this study was to assess the predictive ability of the frailty phenotype (FP), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and frailty index (FI) for the outcomes mortality, hospitalization and increase in dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living ((I)ADL) among older persons. This prospective cohort study with 2-year follow-up included 2420 Dutch community-dwelling older people (65+, mean age 76.3±6.6 years, 39.5% male) who were pre-frail or frail according to the FP. Mortality data were obtained from Statistics Netherlands. All other data were self-reported. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) was calculated for each frailty instrument and outcome measure. The prevalence of frailty, sensitivity and specifcity were calculated using cutoff values proposed by the developers and cutoff values one above and one below the proposed ones (0.05 for FI). All frailty instruments poorly predicted mortality, hospitalization and (I)ADL dependency (AUCs between 0.62–0.65, 0.59–0.63 and 0.60–0.64, respectively). Prevalence estimates of frailty in this population varied between 22.2% (FP) and 64.8% (TFI). The FP and FI showed higher levels of specifcity, whereas sensitivity was higher for the GFI and TFI. Using a different cutoff point considerably changed the prevalence, sensitivity and specifcity. In conclusion, the predictive ability of the FP, GFI, TFI and FI was poor for all outcomes in a population of pre-frail and frail community-dwelling older people. The FP and the FI showed higher values of specifcity, whereas sensitivity was higher for the GFI and TFI.
