12 November 2018
Methods: Healthy adults participated in two testing sessions: an experimental and real-world hospital setup. Data on time lying, sitting/standing, and walking was collected with the HealthPatch and concurrent video recordings. Validity was assessed in three ways: 1. test for mean differences between HealthPatch data and reference values; 2. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient analysis (ICC 3.1 agreement); and 3. test for mean differences between posture detection accuracies.
Results: Thirty-one males were included. Significant mean differences were found between HealthPatch data and reference values for sitting/standing (mean 14.4 minutes, reference: 12.0 minutes, p<0.01) and walking (mean 6.4 minutes, reference: 9.0 minutes, p<0.01) in the experimental setup. Good correlations were found between the HealthPatch data and video data for lying (ICC: 0.824) and sitting/standing (ICC: 0.715) in the hospital setup. Posture detection accuracies of the HealthPatch were significantly higher for lying and sitting/standing in the experimental setup.
Conclusions: Overall, the results show a good validity of the HealthPatch to monitor lying and poor validity to monitor sitting/standing or walking. In addition, the validity outcomes were less favourable in the hospital setup.
Publication
Validation of a wireless patch sensor to monitor mobility tested in both an experimental and a hospital setup: A cross-sectional study.
Koenders N, Seeger JPH, van der Giessen T, van den Hurk TJ, Smits IGM, Tankink AM, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MWG, Hoogeboom TJ.
Niek Koenders and Thomas Hoogeboom are both member of theme Healthcare improvement science.
In PLoS One Niek Koenders and colleagues showed the importance of testing the validity of physical activity monitors in a real-world hospital setup rather than an experimental setup.
Purpose: To assess the concurrent validity of a wireless patch sensor to monitor time lying, sitting/standing, and walking in an experimental and a hospital setup.Methods: Healthy adults participated in two testing sessions: an experimental and real-world hospital setup. Data on time lying, sitting/standing, and walking was collected with the HealthPatch and concurrent video recordings. Validity was assessed in three ways: 1. test for mean differences between HealthPatch data and reference values; 2. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient analysis (ICC 3.1 agreement); and 3. test for mean differences between posture detection accuracies.
Results: Thirty-one males were included. Significant mean differences were found between HealthPatch data and reference values for sitting/standing (mean 14.4 minutes, reference: 12.0 minutes, p<0.01) and walking (mean 6.4 minutes, reference: 9.0 minutes, p<0.01) in the experimental setup. Good correlations were found between the HealthPatch data and video data for lying (ICC: 0.824) and sitting/standing (ICC: 0.715) in the hospital setup. Posture detection accuracies of the HealthPatch were significantly higher for lying and sitting/standing in the experimental setup.
Conclusions: Overall, the results show a good validity of the HealthPatch to monitor lying and poor validity to monitor sitting/standing or walking. In addition, the validity outcomes were less favourable in the hospital setup.
Publication
Validation of a wireless patch sensor to monitor mobility tested in both an experimental and a hospital setup: A cross-sectional study.
Koenders N, Seeger JPH, van der Giessen T, van den Hurk TJ, Smits IGM, Tankink AM, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MWG, Hoogeboom TJ.
Niek Koenders and Thomas Hoogeboom are both member of theme Healthcare improvement science.