Using Smart Home Technologies to Promote Physical Activity Among the General and Aging Populations: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Health-monitoring smart homes are becoming popular, with experts arguing that 9-to-5 health care services might soon become a thing of the past. However, no review has explored the landscape of smart home technologies that aim to promote physical activity and independent living among a wide range of age groups. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to map published studies on smart home technologies aimed at promoting physical activity among the general and aging populations to unveil the state of the art, its potential, and the research gaps and opportunities. METHODS: Articles were retrieved from 6 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ACM Library, and Web of Science). The criteria for inclusion were that the articles must be user studies that dealt with smart home or Active Assisted Living technologies and physical activity, were written in English, and were published in peer-reviewed journals. In total, 3 researchers independently and collaboratively assessed the eligibility of the retrieved articles and elicited the relevant data and findings using tables and charts. RESULTS: This review synthesized 20 articles that met the inclusion criteria, 70% (14/20) of which were conducted between 2018 and 2020. Three-quarters of the studies (15/20, 75%) were conducted in Western countries, with the United States accounting for 25% (5/20). Activities of daily living were the most studied (9/20, 45%), followed by physical activity (6/20, 30%), therapeutic exercise (4/20, 20%), and bodyweight exercise (1/20, 5%). K-nearest neighbor and naïve Bayes classifier were the most used machine learning algorithms for activity recognition, with at least 10% (2/20) of the studies using either algorithm. Ambient and wearable technologies were equally studied (8/20, 40% each), followed by robots (3/20, 15%). Activity recognition was the most common goal of the evaluated smart home technologies, with 55% (11/20) of the studies reporting it, followed by activity monitoring (7/20, 35%). Most studies (8/20, 40%) were conducted in a laboratory setting. Moreover, 25% (5/20) and 10% (2/20) were conducted in a home and hospital setting, respectively. Finally, 75% (15/20) had a positive outcome, 15% (3/20) had a mixed outcome, and 10% (2/20) had an indeterminate outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that smart home technologies, especially digital personal assistants, coaches, and robots, are effective in promoting physical activity among the young population. Although only few studies were identified among the older population, smart home technologies hold bright prospects in assisting and aiding older people to age in place and function independently, especially in Western countries, where there are shortages of long-term care workers. Hence, there is a need to do more work (eg, cross-cultural studies and randomized controlled trials) among the growing aging population on the effectiveness and acceptance of smart home technologies that aim to promote physical activity.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,018 | 0,017 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».