The aim of this study was to assess in practice whether assistive technologies support and facilitate the work of a family caregiver or care staff, and whether these technologies support the independence of a person with a memory disorder. A comprehensive set of supportive devices and alarm systems were experimentally tested in the care of five test subjects in an assisted living facility by eight nurses, and in the care of four test subjects in a home environment by three family caregivers and one care team. Questionnaires, diaries and logged data were used to evaluate the benefits of the devices. Simple aids and alarm systems that did not need much adjusting were considered most useful by caregivers and nurses, though multiple false alarms occurred during the test period. Technical connection problems, complex user interface, and inadequate sound quality were the primary factors reducing the utility of the tested devices. Further experimental research is needed to evaluate the utility of assistive technologies in different stages of a memory disorder.

Morning, day, or evening chronotypes differ by the circadian timing of alertness and the preferred timing of sleep. It has been suggested that evening chronotype is associated with low physical activity (PA) and high sedentary time (SED). Our aim was to investigate whether such an association is confirmed by objectively measured PA and SED. In 46‐year follow‐up of the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 study, total PA (MET min/day) and SED (min/day) among 5156 participants were determined using wrist‐worn accelerometers for 14 days. We used the shortened Morningness‐Eveningness Questionnaire to define participants' chronotypes. As covariates, we used self‐reported physical strenuousness of work, health, and demographics, and clinical measures. We used adjusted general linear models (B coefficients with 95% confidence intervals, CI) to analyze how chronotype was related to total PA or SED. As compared to evening chronotype, men with day and morning chronotypes had higher total PA volumes (adjusted B 75.2, 95% CI [8.1, 142.4], P = .028, and 98.6, [30.2, 167.1], P = .005). Men with day and morning chronotypes had less SED (−35.8, [−53.8, 17.8], P < .0001, and − 38.6, [−56.9, −20.2], P < .0001). Among women, morning chronotype was associated with higher total PA (57.8, [10.5, 105.0], P = .017), whereas no association between chronotype and SED emerged. Evening chronotype was associated with low objectively measured PA in both sexes and with high SED in men, even after adjustments for established potential confounders. Chronotype should be considered in PA promotion.

Objectives Discriminating sleep period from accelerometer data remains a challenge despite many studies have adapted 24-h measurement protocols. We aimed to compare and examine the agreement among device-estimated and self-reported bedtime, wake-up time, and sleep periods in a sample of adults. Materials and methods Participants (108 adults, 61 females) with an average age of 33.1 (SD 0.4) were asked to wear two wearable devices (Polar Active and Ōura ring) simultaneously and record their bedtime and wake up time using a sleep diary. Sleep periods from Polar Active were detected using an in-lab algorithm, which is openly available. Sleep periods from Ōura ring were generated by commercial Ōura system. Scatter plots, Bland–Altman plots, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to evaluate the agreement between the methods. Results Intraclass correlation coefficient values were above 0.81 for bedtimes and wake-up times between the three methods. In the estimation of sleep period, ICCs ranged from 0.67 (Polar Active vs. sleep diary) to 0.76 (Polar Active vs. Ōura ring). Average difference between Polar Active and Ōura ring was −1.8 min for bedtimes and −2.6 min for wake-up times. Corresponding values between Polar Active and sleep diary were −5.4 and −18.9 min, and between Ōura ring and sleep diary −3.6 min and −16.2 min, respectively. Conclusion Results showed a high agreement between Polar Active activity monitor and Ōura ring for sleep period estimation. There was a moderate agreement between self-report and the two devices in estimating bedtime and wake-up time. These findings suggest that potentially wearable devices can be interchangeably used to detect sleep period, but their accuracy remains limited. Key Messages Estimation of sleep period from different devices could be comparable. Difference between sleep periods from monitors and sleep diary are under 20 min. Device-based estimation of sleep period is encouraged in population-based studies.