RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The reliability and validity of a non-wearable indoor positioning system to assess mobility in older adults: A cross-sectional study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.07.04.24309984
DO 10.1101/2024.07.04.24309984
A1 Rodrigues, Isabel B.
A1 Hewston, Patricia
A1 Adachi, Jonathan
A1 Borhan, Sayem
A1 Ioannidis, George
A1 Kouroukis, Alexa
A1 Leckie, Carolyn
A1 Lee, Andrea
A1 Rabinovich, Alexander
A1 Siva, Parthipan
A1 Swance, Rachel
A1 Tariq, Suleman
A1 Thabane, Lehana
A1 Papaioannou, Alexandra
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/07/2024.07.04.24309984.abstract
AB Background Chirp is a privacy-preserving radar sensor developed to continuously monitor older adults’ safety and mobility without the need for cameras or wearable devices. Our study purpose was to evaluate the inter-sensor reliability, intrasession test-retest reliability, and concurrent validity of Chirp in a clinical setting.Methods We recruited 35 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 75.5 (standard deviation: 6.6) years, 86% female). All participants lived alone in an urban city in southwestern Ontario and had access to a smart device with wireless internet. Data were collected with a 4-meter ProtoKinetics Zeno™ Walkway (pressure sensors) with the Chirp sensor (radar positioning) at the end of the walkway. Participants walked during normal and adaptive locomotion experimental conditions (walking-while-talking, obstacle, narrow walking, fast walking). Each of the experimental conditions was conducted twice in a randomized order, with fast walking trials performed last. For intra-session reliability testing, we conducted two blocks of walks within a participant session separated by approximately 30 minutes. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient(A,1) (ICC(A,1)) was used to assess the reliability and validity. Linear regression, adjusted for gender, was used to investigate the association between Chirp and cognition and health-related quality of life scores.Results The Chirp inter-sensor reliability ICC(A,1)=0.999[95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.997 to 0.999] and intrasession test-retest reliability [ICC(A,1) =0.921, 95% CI: 0.725 to 0.969] were excellent across all experimental conditions. Chirp concurrent validity compared to the ProtoKinetics Zeno™ Walkway was excellent across experimental conditions [ICC(A,1)= 0.993, 95% CI: 0.985 to 0.997]. We found a weak association between Chirp and cognition scores using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment across experimental conditions (estimated β-value= 7.79, 95% CI: 2.79 to 12.80) and no association between the Chirp and health-related quality of life using the 12-item Short Form Survey across experimental conditions (estimated β-value=6.12, 95% CI: -7.12 to 19.36).Conclusion Our results demonstrate that Chirp is a reliable and valid measure to assess gait parameters in clinics among older adults.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementYesAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics approval was obtained from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HIREB #15237).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesSee file S4 in the supplementary information