Previously the National Health and Examination Survey measured physical activity with an accelerometer worn on the hip for seven days, but recently changed the location of the monitor to the wrist. PURPOSE This study compared estimates of physical activity intensity and type with an accelerometer on the hip versus the wrist. METHODS Healthy adults (n=37) wore triaxial accelerometers (Wockets) on the hip and dominant wrist along with a portable metabolic unit to measure energy expenditure during 20 activities. Motion summary counts were created, then receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine sedentary and activity intensity thresholds. Ambulatory activities were separated from other activities using the coefficient of variation (CV) of the counts. Mixed model predictions were used to estimate activity intensity. RESULTS The ROC for determining sedentary behavior had greater sensitivity and specificity (71% and 96%) at the hip than the wrist (53% and 76%), as did the ROC for moderate to vigorous physical activity on the hip (70% and 83%) versus the wrist (30% and 69%). The ROC for the CV associated with ambulation had a larger AUC at the hip compared to the wrist (0.83 and 0.74). The prediction model for activity energy expenditure (AEE) resulted in an average difference of 0.55 (+/− 0.55) METs on the hip and 0.82 (+/− 0.93) METs on the wrist. CONCLUSIONS Methods frequently used for estimating AEE and identifying activity intensity thresholds from an accelerometer on the hip generally do better than similar data from an accelerometer on the wrist. Accurately identifying sedentary behavior from a lack of wrist motion presents significant challenges.

No abstract

We introduce the PlaceLab, a new "living laboratory" for the study of ubiquitous technologies in home settings. The PlaceLab is a tool for researchers developing context-aware and ubiquitous interaction technologies. It complements more traditional data gathering instruments and methods, such as home ethnography and laboratory studies. We describe the data collection capabilities of the laboratory and current examples of its use.

No abstract

BackgroundCapturing and Analyzing Sensor and Self-Report Data for Clinicians and Researchers (COMPASS) is an electronic health (eHealth) platform designed to improve cancer care delivery through passive monitoring of patients’ health status and delivering customizable reports to clinicians. Based on data from sensors and context-driven administration of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, key indices of patients’ functional status can be collected between regular clinic visits, supporting clinicians in the delivery of patient care.ObjectiveThe first phase of this project aimed to systematically collect input from oncology providers and patients on potential clinical applications for COMPASS to refine the system.MethodsTen clinicians representing various oncology specialties and disciplines completed semi-structured interviews designed to solicit clinician input on how COMPASS can best support clinical care delivery. Three cancer patients tested a prototype of COMPASS for 7 days and provided feedback. Interview data were tabulated using thematic content analysis to identify the most clinically relevant objective and PRO domains.ResultsThematic content analysis revealed that clinicians were most interested in monitoring vital statistics, symptoms, and functional status, including the physical activity level (n=9), weight (n=5), fatigue (n=9), sleep quality (n=8), and anxiety (n=7). Patients (2 in active treatment and 1 in remission) reported that they would use such a device, were enthusiastic about their clinicians monitoring their health status, especially the tracking of symptoms, and felt knowing their clinicians were monitoring and reviewing their health status provided valuable reassurance. Patients would, however, like to provide some context to their data.ConclusionsClinicians and patients both articulated potential benefits of the COMPASS system in improving cancer care. From a clinician standpoint, data need to be easily interpretable and actionable. The fact that patients and clinicians both see potential value in eHealth systems suggests wider adoption and utilization could prove to be a useful tool for improving care delivery.