Using Smart Home Technologies to Promote Physical Activity Among the General and Aging Populations: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".