Acceptability and feasibility of wearing activity monitors in community‐dwelling older adults with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Measuring physical activity is complicated particularly in people with dementia, where activity levels are low and subjective measures are susceptible to inaccurate recall. Activity monitors are increasingly being used within research; however, it is unclear how people with dementia view wearing such devices and what aspects of the device effect wear time. The aim of the study was to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of people with dementia wearing activity monitors. METHODS: Twenty-six, community-dwelling, people with mild dementia were asked to wear an activity monitor (GENEactiv Original) over a 1-month period. Perceptions of the device were measured using the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST) 2.0, alongside qualitative interviews. Device diary and activity monitor data were used to assess compliance. RESULTS: Participants tended to find wearing the activity monitors acceptable, with only three participants (12%) withdrawing prior to the study end date. Participants were generally satisfied with wearing the devices as measured by the QUEST (Mdn = 4.4, IQR = 1.1). Four themes were identified that influenced perceptions of wearing the device: external influences, design, routine, and perceived benefits. DISCUSSION: Asking people with dementia to wear a wrist-worn activity monitor for prolonged periods appears to be both feasible and acceptable. Researchers need to consider the needs and preferences of the sample population prior to selecting activity monitors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".