How an Age Simulation Suit affects Motor and Cognitive Performance and Self-perception in Younger Adults

Vieweg, Janine; Schaefer, Sabine

doi:10.1080/0361073x.2020.1766299

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Effects of GERT with full and low weight on performance of each physical activity task and associated psychological characteristics will be analyzed using a series of ANOVAS. Furthermore, it is examined whether the task 6MWT generates similar results as in other studies (e.g., Reference [18]). Differences in measurements and perceptions before and after performing the two tasks (6MWT and SCT) will be identified via repeated measures ANOVA.…”

Section: Hypothesis 3 (H3)mentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Since a homogeneous group of participants is targeted, it is probable that a small number of participants already yields a significant and powerful result. As already described in Section 1, the proposed study design is inspired on the study by Vieweg and Schäfer ( [18]). Here, a group of 19 individuals (mixed gender) has proven to be sufficient.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the current literature, the use of an age simulation suit mainly focuses on subjective aspects (see Reference [18]), to increase empathy of the users in care professions [10,11] or with the goal of adapting the ergonomics of work places [19]. Focusing on increasing empathy for the elderly, Lee and Teh conduct a randomized controlled study with a homogeneous group of 120 pharmacy students.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Less common is the measurement of performances by focusing on physiological parameters while utilizing an age simulation suit (e.g., Reference [21] with the age suit GERT (GERontologic test suit), Reference [22] AGNES , Reference [19] or MAX). According to Vieweg and Schäfer (2020), only Lauenroth et al (2017) and Scherf (2014) additionally compare the measured physiological parameters to a reference data set of older groups of people [18]. Vieweg and Schäfer (2020) investigate whether the use of the age simulation suit GERT has an impact on 20 young test persons' fine and gross motor skills as well as cognitive performances.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Designing a Randomized Trial with an Age Simulation Suit—Representing People with Health Impairments

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to demographic change, there is an increasing demand for professional care services, whereby this demand cannot be met by available caregivers. To enable adequate care by relieving informal and formal care, the independence of people with chronic diseases has to be preserved for as long as possible. Assistance approaches can be used that support promoting physical activity, which is a main predictor of independence. One challenge is to design and test such approaches without affecting the people in focus. In this paper, we propose a design for a randomized trial to enable the use of an age simulation suit to generate reference data of people with health impairments with young and healthy participants. Therefore, we focus on situations of increased physical activity.

show abstract

Section: Hypothesis 3 (H3)mentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Designing a Randomized Trial with an Age Simulation Suit—Representing People with Health Impairments

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to the effects of cognitive status on physical performance, advancing age also has measurable effects on physical activity, performance, and functionality. A recent study assessed the effects of an age simulation suit on gross motor, fine motor and cognitive performance in healthy young adults and found that the age simulation suit reduced all three performances as well as mood and perceived physical state [ 63 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Quick Physical Activity Rating (QPAR) scale: A brief assessment of physical activity in older adults with and without cognitive impairment

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) currently affect over 5.7 million Americans and over 35 million people worldwide. At the same time, over 31 million older adults are physically inactive with impaired physical performance interfering with activities of daily living. Low physical activity is a risk factor for ADRD. We examined the utility of a new measure, the Quick Physical Activities Rating (QPAR) as an informant-rated instrument to quantify the dosage of physical activities in healthy controls, MCI and ADRD compared with Gold Standard assessments of objective measures of physical performance, fitness, and functionality. Methods This study analyzed 390 consecutive patient-caregiver dyads who underwent a comprehensive evaluation including the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), mood, neuropsychological testing, caregiver ratings of patient behavior and function, and a comprehensive physical performance and gait assessment. The QPAR was completed prior to the office visit and was not considered in the clinical evaluation, physical performance assessment, staging or diagnosis of the patient. Psychometric properties including item variability and distribution, floor and ceiling effects, strength of association, known-groups performance, and internal consistency were determined. Results The patients had a mean age of 75.3±9.2 years, 15.7±2.8 years of education and were 46.9% female. The patients had a mean CDR-SB of 4.8±4.7 and a mean MoCA score of 18.6±7.1 and covered a range of healthy controls (CDR 0 = 54), MCI or very mild dementia (CDR 0.5 = 161), mild dementia (CDR 1 = 92), moderate dementia (CDR 2 = 64), and severe dementia (CDR 3 = 29). The mean QPAR score was 20.2±18.9 (range 0–132) covering a wide range of physical activity. The QPAR internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) was very good at 0.747. The QPAR was correlated with measures of physical performance (dexterity, grip strength, gait, mobility), physical functionality rating scales, measures of activities of daily living and comorbidities, the UPDRS, and frailty ratings (all p < .001). The QPAR report of physical activities was able to discriminate between individuals with impaired physical functionality (32.2±23.9 vs 15.2±13.8, p < .001), falls risk (28.4±21.6 vs. 14.5±13.2, p < .001), and the presence of frailty (28.1±22.7 vs. 11.8±9.4, p < .001). The QPAR showed strong psychometric properties and excellent data quality, and worked equally well across different patient ages, sexes, informant relationships, and in individuals with and without cognitive impairment. Discussion The QPAR is a brief detection tool that captures informant reports of physical activities and differentiates individuals with normal physical functionality from those individuals with impaired physical functionality. The QPAR correlated with Gold Standard assessments of strength and sarcopenia, activities of daily living, gait and mobility, fitness, health...

show abstract

Effects of age simulation suits on psychological and physical outcomes: a systematic review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Age simulation suits (ASS) are widely used to simulate sensory and physical restrictions that typically occur as people age. This review has two objectives: first, we synthesize the current research on ASS in terms of the observed psychological and physical effects associated with ASS. Second, we analyze indicators able to estimate the validity of ASS in simulating “true” ageing processes. Following the PRISMA guidelines, eight electronic databases were searched (BASE, Cinhal, Cochrane, Google Scholar, ProQuest, PsychINFO, Pubmed, and Web of Science). Qualitative and quantitative studies addressing effects of ASS interventions regarding psychological outcomes (i.e., empathy, attitudes) or physical parameters (i.e., gait, balance) were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was applied for quality assessment. Of 1890 identified citations, we included 94 for full-text screening and finally 26 studies were examined. Publication years ranged from 2001 to 2021. Study populations were predominantly based on students in health-related disciplines. Results suggest that ASS can initiate positive effects on attitudes toward (dweighted = 0.33) and empathy for older adults (dweighted = 0.54). Physical performance was significantly reduced; however, there is only little evidence of a realistic simulation of typical ageing processes. Although positive effects of ASS are supported to some extent, more diverse study populations and high-quality controlled designs are needed. Further, validation studies examining whether the simulation indeed reflects “real” ageing are needed and should build on reference data generated by standardized geriatric assessments or adequate comparison groups of older adults.Prospero registration: 232686.

show abstract

How an Age Simulation Suit affects Motor and Cognitive Performance and Self-perception in Younger Adults

Cited by 18 publications

References 42 publications

Designing a Randomized Trial with an Age Simulation Suit—Representing People with Health Impairments

Designing a Randomized Trial with an Age Simulation Suit—Representing People with Health Impairments

The Quick Physical Activity Rating (QPAR) scale: A brief assessment of physical activity in older adults with and without cognitive impairment

Effects of age simulation suits on psychological and physical outcomes: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About